Medical disability of 75.5 per cent, functional disability of 100: Supreme Court doubles a scooter accident award
Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria raised compensation for two men injured near the Paliyekkara toll plaza, assessing functional disability by its effect on earning capacity and attendant charges by multiplier.
A medical board certified a man injured in a scooter accident as 75.5 per cent permanently disabled. He had suffered severe head injuries, including diffuse axonal injury and a midbrain contusion, and will need an attendant for the rest of his life. On 15 October 2026 the Supreme Court held that, for working out what he has lost, his disability must be treated as 100 per cent. Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing for himself and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, raised his compensation from ₹36,22,644, the figure set by the Kerala High Court, to ₹77,84,394. The driver of the scooter, who had serious injuries to both arms, had his award raised from ₹27,70,664 to ₹69,60,880. The Court also held that attendant charges for a lifetime of care must be calculated using the multiplier, not as a nominal lump sum.
The accident and the awards below
At about 7.40 a.m. on 22 October 2016, two men were riding a scooter on the Thrissur-Kodara road. Near the Paliyekkara toll plaza another scooter, ridden rashly and negligently, hit them. Sunil Kumar, aged 43, was on the pillion. Sreejith K.S., aged 22, was driving. Both said they traded in bakery products and earned ₹30,000 a month.
On 15 February 2021 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Irinjalakuda awarded Sunil Kumar ₹19,91,954 and Sreejith ₹16,03,400, with interest at 8 per cent. In a common judgment of 6 January 2026, the High Court raised Sunil Kumar's notional income from ₹9,000 to ₹15,000 a month, after finding that his certificate in agricultural machinery training did not mean farming was his only work. It fixed Sreejith's income at ₹10,500 under Ramachandrappa, increased the awards for pain and suffering and loss of amenities to ₹2,50,000 each, and kept the medical board's disability figures of 75.5 and 62 per cent. Both men appealed.
Medical disability is not the measure
The Court held that the High Court had assessed compensation without considering what the injuries actually do to the claimant's life. Sunil Kumar's injuries included severe head injuries, an open diffuse axonal injury, a midbrain contusion with Weber's syndrome and a penetrating knee injury. He would need an attendant and a bystander throughout his life and would suffer a higher-grade psychiatric disability. A person who depends on another and needs an attendant for life, the Court held, suffers 100 per cent functional disability. He cannot do his own work, let alone earn for himself and his family.
The Court relied on its recent decision in Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which distinguishes medical disability from functional disability and identifies loss of earning capacity as the main element of permanent disability. It also relied on Jithendran, where a claimant with 69 per cent physical disability but severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility was treated as 100 per cent functionally disabled for loss of earning capacity, and on a 2026 decision in a case brought by Reliance General Insurance urging a realistic approach.
For Sunil Kumar, the calculation became: annual income of ₹1,80,000 at 100 per cent disability, plus 25 per cent for future prospects, giving ₹2,25,000, multiplied by 14. That produced ₹31,50,000 for loss of earning capacity.
Attendant charges by multiplier
The High Court had awarded ₹1,00,000 for attendant or bystander charges. The Court held that this did not follow Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, where a monthly sum for a fixed number of years was disapproved in favour of the multiplier method. The multiplier, recognised as far back as Gobald Motor Service, accounts for inflation, interest on a lump sum, the claimant's life expectancy and the uncertainties of life. It should be used for attendant charges as well as loss of income. Applying it gave Sunil Kumar ₹15,000 multiplied by 12 and then by 14, which is ₹25,20,000, for care he will need almost all his life.
The Court left the High Court's other figures as they were: ₹10,00,000 for future medical expenses, ₹4,02,394 for medical expenses, and ₹2,50,000 each for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. His total came to ₹77,84,394.
The driver's injuries
Sreejith had fractures of the right wrist and scaphoid, fractures of the left first and second metacarpals, and an injury to the lower trunk of the left brachial plexus, which can affect the nerves supplying the arm. The Court held that he had effectively lost his earning capacity in the open market and set his functional disability at 80 per cent against the medical board's 62. It upheld the High Court's notional income of ₹10,500, 40 per cent for future prospects and a multiplier of 18 under Sarla Verma, which gave ₹25,40,160 for loss of earning capacity. His bystander award of ₹9,300 was also increased under the principles in Kajal and Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath. His total came to ₹69,60,880.
Order
Both appeals were allowed. Sunil Kumar is entitled to an additional ₹41,61,750 and Sreejith to an additional ₹41,90,216. On these additional amounts the Court awarded interest at 6.5 per cent a year from the date of the claim petitions until payment, instead of the 8 per cent that applies to the original awards. The insurer must deposit the amounts with the Tribunal within six weeks, and the Tribunal will transfer them directly to the claimants' bank accounts after verifying their identity.