The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a significant judgment in a long-running motor accident compensation case involving a minor from Thrissur, offering a clearer direction on how injuries to children should be assessed.
Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria spent considerable time examining the earlier findings of the Kerala High Court, occasionally questioning some of the benchmarks used, especially in estimating future earning potential. A slightly tense hush settled in the courtroom when the bench began recalculating compensation figures, almost like a real-time audit.
Background
The appeal arose from a tragic 2002 accident in which the appellant-then a 14-year-old schoolboy studying in the 7th standard suffered severe injuries. He had been travelling with others in an auto-rickshaw when a lorry allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner rammed into it. The collision left him with permanent disability pegged at 77.1%, a fact later affirmed by a Medical Board and accepted by all parties, including the insurance company.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 1,73,000 with 7% interest. The Kerala High Court, in 2020, increased the amount drastically, adding nearly Rs. 5.75 lakh under several categories such as future prospects, pain and suffering, and marriage impairment. Yet, the injured young man sought further enhancement before the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
The hearing moved at a steady rhythm, with both counsels presenting their arguments without unnecessary theatrics. The bench, however, appeared focused primarily on the mathematical and humanitarian aspects rather than the adversarial debate.
The bench observed,
"Compensation must reflect the real impact of disability on a child’s life trajectory, not just the arithmetic of wages lost." That line seemed to settle the tone of the hearing.
The judges leaned heavily on previous precedents involving severely injured minors, notably Sona (minor) vs. Manual C.M., decided earlier in 2025, where the Supreme Court had considered a 75% disability case involving a very young child. They also cited the widely applied principles in Pranay Sethi, especially regarding future prospects, and several other judgments laying down the framework for pain, suffering, special diet, and loss of amenities.
At one point, Justice Anjaria questioned whether the High Court had overlooked out-of-pocket medical expenses not reflected in bills.
"There are small costs that families in such situations never put on paper," the bench remarked, acknowledging the everyday financial struggles of Indian families handling trauma and recovery.
The Court found the High Court's calculation of medical expenses too restrictive limited only to submitted bills despite a 22-day hospitalisation. Similarly, the judges concluded that Rs. 50,000 for medical needs was more appropriate, including future care.
The bench also revisited the sensitive subject of marriage prospects.
"A 77% disability affects not just earnings but dignity, relationships, and the ability to lead a fuller personal life," the judges noted before raising the amount significantly.
Decision
Wrapping up its detailed recalibration, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 15,13,337 (rounded). After deducting what had already been received, the Court declared that an additional Rs. 7,64,454 must be paid, accompanied by 8% interest from the date of the original application.
The Court also issued a clear operational directive: the insurance company must transfer the enhanced compensation to the appellant’s bank account within eight weeks, and place proof of payment before the Tribunal within one week thereafter.
And with that precise order, the matter finally drew to a close after more than two decades of legal movement through tribunal, high court, and now apex court corridors.
Case Title: Riyas vs. P.N. Shinosh & Anr.
Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6544 of 2024