Supreme Court Revises MACT Award to Rs 3.77 Crore for Accident Victim with 100% Permanent Disability

A Division Bench upheld the deceased’s-age multiplier rule and enhanced compensation for a pillion rider left totally blind and with a permanent stoma after a 2011 truck accident.

The Supreme Court on 3 September 2026 decided a cluster of civil appeals arising from a single road accident in Haryana in April 2011, resolving two distinct compensation disputes: one concerning the parents of the man who died at the scene, and one concerning the woman who survived with catastrophic injuries. In the survivor’s case, the Court commissioned a fresh medical evaluation by a government hospital board, received a finding of 100 per cent permanent physical impairment, and revised total compensation upward to Rs 3,77,84,297. In the death-claim appeals, it dismissed all challenges and confirmed the compensation already awarded to the deceased’s parents. The bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria, deciding Civil Appeal Nos. 12085–12089 of 2026, settled the long-disputed question of which multiplier applies when dependants are the claimants, and drew a firm line between retained employment and actual earning capacity in the open labour market.

The Accident and the Two Streams of Litigation

On 10 April 2011 at around 5.30 p.m., Sushant Prabhakaran was riding a motorcycle near Brijghat Bridge with Priyanka Das as pillion. A heavy goods vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55-2812, insured by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, struck the motorcycle. Sushant Prabhakaran fell under the truck’s wheels and died instantly. Priyanka Das sustained grievous multiple injuries to vital parts of her body. FIR No. 198 of 2011 was registered at Police Station Gadmukteshwar on the complaint of a passerby, Radhe Shyam Kaushik.

Two separate claim petitions followed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram. MACT Petition No. 9 of 2014 was filed by Priyanka Das claiming Rs 5 crores for loss arising from Sushant Prabhakaran’s death (he was her claimed husband, though the Tribunal found no documented marriage). MACT Petition No. 94 of 2014 was filed by Priyanka Das for her own injuries, claiming Rs 12 crores. The two sets of appeals reached the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal Nos. 12085–12086 of 2026 (the death claim) and Civil Appeal Nos. 12087–12089 of 2026 (the injury claim).

The Death-Claim Appeals: Multiplier and Negligence

At the time of the accident, Sushant Prabhakaran was 33 years old and employed as a Manager at the Contact Centre of Ericsson India Private Limited, Gurugram. His gross salary was Rs 10,65,600 per annum; after deductions, the Tribunal worked with Rs 8,94,100. The Tribunal added 50 per cent for future prospects and applied a 50 per cent deduction, arriving at an annual dependency loss of Rs 6,70,575. With a multiplier of 16 applied to the deceased’s age bracket of 31–35 years, and after deducting the sum received under a Personal Accident Term Policy, the Tribunal awarded Rs 82,56,152 and apportioned it among the claimants. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana made only a minor change, increasing Priyanka Das’s share from Rs 5,00,000 to Rs 7,50,000.

Reliance General Insurance challenged two things before the Supreme Court: negligence findings and the multiplier. On negligence, the Court found no serious challenge warranting interference. The Tribunal had applied the preponderance-of-probabilities standard appropriate for summary MACT proceedings. Priyanka Das herself testified as PW-9, an eyewitness. The truck driver, examined as RW-2, admitted he was on trial under FIR No. 198 and that his licence and vehicle were impounded at the scene. He further admitted he had never filed a complaint claiming false implication. The insurer’s argument that the vehicle lacked a valid fitness certificate was rejected on the basis of the contemporaneous Registration Certificate, Exhibit R-6.

On the multiplier, the insurer argued that because the compensation was being received by the deceased’s parents, the multiplier should correspond to the parents’ ages rather than the deceased’s age. The Court rejected this emphatically. It traced the settled legal position through three authorities: Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, which standardised the multiplier table; Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347, a three-judge bench ruling that the multiplier must be determined by the deceased’s age and not the dependants’ ages; and Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh, (2018) 3 SCC 18, which confirmed that the issue is no more res integra. The standardised matrix in Sarla Verma was further validated by the five-judge bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. Sushant Prabhakaran was 33 years old, placing him in the 31–35 age bracket, which carries a multiplier of 16. The MACT and the High Court were correct. Both appeals in the death-claim stream were dismissed.

Priyanka Das: The Scale of Her Injuries

Priyanka Das was 35 years old at the time of the accident and was working as Deputy Group Manager at IBM Daksh (Concentrix Daksh Services India Pvt. Ltd.) in Cyber City, Gurugram. The injuries she sustained were severe. She was admitted immediately at Anand Hospital, Meerut with pelvic fractures and blindness. She was then treated at Fortis Hospital, Noida from 12 April to 11 June 2011, where she underwent pelvic reconstruction. She was subsequently treated at Kailash Hospital, Noida from 11 June to 26 August 2011 for rectal and colostomy surgeries.

On 30 January 2014, Dr. Radhika Tandon of AIIMS, New Delhi certified 100 per cent visual disability due to traumatic bilateral occipital gliosis — a total, incurable loss of vision. The Gastrointestinal Surgery Department, AIIMS certified on 8 January 2015 that the claimant requires a permanent colostomy stoma for life. Attempts to restore continuity of her large intestine at AIIMS failed due to a communication between the rectal stump and a wound in her lower back.

The Tribunal and the High Court: Diverging Assessments

The Tribunal assessed functional disability at 60 per cent. Its reasoning: although the claimant had 100 per cent physical disability, she was still employed as Deputy Group Manager and her cost-to-company had actually risen from Rs 16 lakhs to Rs 19 lakhs per annum after the accident. The Tribunal calculated loss of future income at Rs 98,78,105 and awarded a total of Rs 1,35,53,298.

The High Court enhanced functional disability to 80 per cent. It noted that the claimant could work only through highly specialised assistive software provided by her employer. A Career Growth Letter dated 6 February 2018 from the employer confirmed that since joining in 2003 the claimant had received only four promotions up to 2018, evidencing lost career advancement to positions such as General Manager, Director, or Vice President. Relying on Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors., (2022) 13 SCC 790, the High Court held that disability assessment must focus on loss of income-generating capacity in the open market, not the medical percentage of limb impairment. It applied a multiplier of 16 to the claimant’s age and awarded 50 per cent for future prospects, raising the total to Rs 2,94,82,617.

The Supreme Court’s Medical Board Direction and Its Consequences

On 17 October 2025, the Supreme Court directed the claimant to appear before a Medical Board at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The board comprised specialists from Neurology, Neurosurgery, Ophthalmology, General Surgery, and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. On 27 February 2026, the multi-disciplinary board, chaired by Dr. Vandana Chakravarty, examined the claimant. The Report dated 28 February 2026 concluded: 100 per cent Permanent Physical Impairment of the whole body.

The insurer argued that even accepting 100 per cent physical impairment, the compensation already awarded was excessive because the claimant had not lost employment and her salary had increased. The Court rejected this in a pointed passage. Since the insurer had itself invited the Medical Board’s opinion and raised no objection to the exercise, it could not now argue that compensation should be assessed at a lesser percentage than what the duly constituted board had found. The Court held that the board’s report would be the guiding factor.

The Court then shifted the analysis from functional to full disability. Retention of a specific, highly accommodated role — made possible only through specially created software, flexible hours, and what the Court called “an act of corporate compassion” — does not measure employability in the open, competitive market. The Career Growth Letter confirmed that her normal progression was foreclosed. The Court concluded that the claimant’s capacity to independently secure, sustain, or advance employment in the open labour market had been entirely extinguished, warranting 100 per cent functional disability.

Recalculation of Compensation

Working from a monthly income of Rs 84,057 (annual: Rs 10,08,684), the Court applied 50 per cent for future prospects, arriving at a total annual financial loss of Rs 15,13,026. With a multiplier of 16, loss of future earning capacity came to Rs 2,42,08,416. The Court also revised upward several other heads. Attendant charges were recalculated for three attendants providing 24×7 care, yielding Rs 28,80,000. Future medical expenses were increased to Rs 15,00,000. Pain, suffering and mental agony was fixed at Rs 15,00,000, having regard to the periods of hospitalisation and the multiple surgeries. Loss of marriage prospects was fixed at Rs 20,00,000, with the Court expressly directing that this determination should not be treated as a precedent.

The complete revised compensation table is as follows:

Outcome

Civil Appeal Nos. 12085 and 12086 of 2026 (the death-claim appeals by the insurer and by Priyanka Das respectively) were dismissed. The compensation of Rs 82,56,152 awarded to the deceased’s parents, with the High Court’s minor apportionment modification, was confirmed.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12087–12088 of 2026 filed by Reliance General Insurance were dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 12089 of 2026 filed by Priyanka Das was allowed in part. Total compensation was revised to Rs 3,77,84,297, with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition until full realisation. No order as to costs was made in any of the appeals.