In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to Kumari Neelam, a 21-year-old engineering student who suffered 100% paralysis below the waist due to a road accident, from ₹1.49 crore to ₹1.90 crore. The Court declared the enhanced compensation not as charity but as a “moral and legal necessity”, stressing the constitutional obligation to ensure a life of dignity for victims of such life-altering tragedies.
The accident occurred near the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Uttarakhand, where Neelam was studying B.Tech. A rashly driven car hit her while she was walking with a friend, causing irreparable damage. The trial tribunal had earlier granted compensation, which was challenged by the insurance company for being excessive, and also by Neelam seeking enhancement.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Relief to Bikramjit Singh Majithia in Alleged Illegal Arrest Case
“Her accident was not her fault. It was a consequence of someone else's negligence… The law must not merely count the rupees lost, but the dreams denied,” the Court observed while rejecting the insurer’s objection that the compensation exceeded the claimed amount.
Highlighting the multidimensional suffering of the claimant—physical, psychological, social, and financial—Justice Ganesh Ram Meena emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach in such grievous disability cases.
“Enhanced compensation is not a windfall; it is a moral and legal necessity. It is an attempt by the justice system to at least partially restore what was taken from her—a future, a body, a chance to live on her own terms.”
Read also:- Kerala High Court: Married Woman Cannot Allege Sexual Assault on False Promise of Marriage Under S.69 BNS
Key Observations by the Court
Loss of Future Income: Based on her academic standing and placement data of her peers, her notional income was fixed at ₹5 lakh/year with 40% future prospects. Using a multiplier of 18, this amounted to ₹1.26 crore.
Pain and Suffering: The Court enhanced this from ₹15 lakh to ₹25 lakh acknowledging the lifetime of mental, emotional, and physical hardship.
Loss of Marriage Prospects: Recognizing social stigma and emotional trauma, the compensation under this head was raised from ₹3 lakh to ₹5 lakh.
Attendant Charges & Medical Needs: Full-time care needs were considered critical. The court upheld ₹21.6 lakh for attendant care and ₹8 lakh for future medical expenses, including physiotherapy, equipment, and caregiving.
Read also:- Supreme Court Implements OBC Reservation in Staff Appointments for the First Time
“Any support or compensation she receives must acknowledge not just the cost of medical care, but the loss of opportunities, dignity, and dreams.”
Citing landmark judgments like Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport, and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, the Court reiterated that “just compensation” is not restricted to economic losses but must consider loss of autonomy, social identity, and the right to live with dignity.
The Court also directed that 50% of the enhanced amount be kept in fixed deposits for 7 years and the interest accrued on this sum for 10 years to ensure long-term financial security for the victim.
Title: Kumari Neelam v Jai Prakash Natani & Ors.
