The calculation of functional disability depends on assessing the victim’s earning capacity in the open, competitive market, rather than on retention in a specific, highly accommodated role. Evidence before the High Court, specifically the Career Growth Letter dated 06.02.2018 from her employer, confirmed that the Claimant lost out on her normal career growth and promotional progression, including advancement to the positions of General Manager, Director, or Vice President, as a result of the accident. Therecord further indicates that she is able to perform her current duties only through specially created software, flexible working hours, and extreme accommodations provided by her employer as an act of corporate compassion. {Para 19}
20. Based on the official Medical Board Report issued by Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital, which evaluated the Claimant and certified a 100% PPI of the whole body due to post-traumatic head injury with cortical blindness, pelvic fracture, and a permanent colostomy, the compensation calculation shifts from the High Court’s 80% assessment to a 100% functional disability because the Claimant’s capacity to independently secure, sustain, or advance employment in the open labour market has been entirely extinguished.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12085 OF 2026
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED Vs PRIYANKA DAS AND OTHERS
Author: S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 950.
1. The Civil Appeals arise from the Order dated 24.01.2019 in FAO Nos.
3607 and 5444 of 2017 (O&M) of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
2. Civil Appeal No. 12085 of 2026 is at the instance of Reliance General
Insurance Company Limited, and Civil Appeal No. 12086 of 2026 is at the
instance of the Claimant.
3. On 10.04.2011 at around 05.30 P.M., an accident occurred near
Brijghat Bridge between a motorcycle and a heavy goods vehicle bearing No.
HR-55-2812. The motorcycle was driven by Sushant Prabhakaran, and
Priyanka Das/Claimant was the pillion rider. The FIR narrates the accident,
and the Chargesheet states that the heavy goods vehicle hit the motorcycle, causing the riders to fall, and the truck ran over Sushant Prabhakaran,resulting in his instantaneous death. The Claimant/pillion rider sustained
grievous multiple injuries to vital parts of the body. FIR No. 198, dated
10.04.2011, was registered at Police Station Gadmukteshwar on the
complaint received from passerby/third party Radhe Shyam Kaushik. The
Civil Appeals are confined to the claim for compensation arising from the
demise of Sushant Prabhakaran. At the time of his death, Late Sushant
Prabhakaran was 33 years old and employed as Manager, Contact Centre, at
Ericsson India Private Limited, DLF Cyber City, Gurugram. Sahadeov Prasad
is the father, and Sandhya Prasad is the mother of the deceased. It was
pleaded in the Claim Petition that the Claimant was the widow of Sushant
Prabhakaran.
4. MACT Petition No. 9 of 2014 was filed by Priyanka Das, the injured
pillion rider, claiming compensation of Rs. 5 crores, together with interest at
18% per annum. The parents of the deceased were arrayed as Proforma
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in MACT Petition No. 9 of 2014 before the Court of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (“The Tribunal”).
5. The Claimant, in support of the claim for Rs.5 crores in compensation,
primarily relied on the evidence of Ajay Kumar Chadha, PW-11, and the salary
slips of Sushant Prabhkar, marked as Exhibit PW-11/A, which evidenced the
deceased’s income/salary at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, on
03.04.2017, awarded Rs.82,56,152/- and apportioned as follows:
1. Priyanka Das: Rs. 5,00,000/-.
2. Sahadeov Prasad: Rs. 50,000/-
3
3. Sandhya Prasad: Rs.77,06,152/-
6. On negligence and the cause of the accident, the Tribunal held that the
determination of compensation before the Tribunal is summary in nature and
that negligence is evaluated on the preponderance of probabilities, rather
than the strict criminal standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. PW-9,
the injured pillion rider, has deposed to the circumstances leading to the
accident. The manner in which the motorcycle was crushed beneath the
truck’s tyres established that the accident was due to the rash and negligent
driving of the truck driver examined as RW-2. The Insurer’s defence that the
terms of the Insurance Policy have been violated was rejected, inasmuch as
the Insurer contended that the Vehicle No. HR-55-2812 did not have a valid
fitness certificate. This contention is disbelieved upon appreciation of the
contemporaneous Registration Certificate of the vehicle marked as Exhibit-
R6. Consequently, the Tribunal fastened liability of Rs.82,56,152/- on the
Insurer.
7. The Tribunal, in apportioning compensation, did not accept Priyanka
Das’s claim that she was the legally wedded wife of Sushant Prabhakaran.
There is no documentary evidence of the factum of their marriage. While
rejecting her status as a legally wedded wife, the Tribunal appreciated
Exhibits P-13 and P-14, i.e., employment records, in asserting the status she
claimed as the wife of the deceased Sushant Prabhakaran. In the
circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that Priyanka Das had listed the
deceased, Sushant Prabhakaran, as her fiancé. The Tribunal considered
Priyanka Das’s independent standing and recorded that she was not
4
financially dependent on the deceased. As per Exhibit P-11/A, the deceased’s
gross salary was Rs.10,65,600/- per annum, and after deduction, the salary
was determined at Rs.8,94,100/-. The Tribunal, after adding 50 per cent
towards future prospects and applying a deduction of 50 per cent, determined
the annual pendency loss at Rs.6,70,575/-.
8. The age of the deceased was established as 33 years, and a multiplier
of sixteen was applied. Accordingly, the total loss of dependency was
determined to be Rs. 1,07,29,200/-. From the gross total of Rs. 1,08,54,200/,
the amount received under the Personal Accidental Term Policy was deducted.
Accordingly, the net compensation was determined to be Rs. 82,56,152/-.
9. The Insurer and the Claimant preferred FAO Nos. 3607 and 5444 of
2017 before the High Court. By the Impugned Judgment, the High Court
made a minor modification to the apportionment of compensation, thereby
increasing the compensation awarded to Priyanka Das from Rs.5,00,000/- to
Rs.7,50,000/-. The Insurer challenges the quantum of compensation
awarded, and Priyanka Das challenges the apportionment of compensation
by refusing to treat her as the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sushant
Prabhakaran.
10. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
11. The findings of fact by the Tribunal on Negligence are summed
hereunder:-
5
A. The MACT proceedings are summary in nature, and negligence is
assessed on the “preponderance of probabilities” rather than the strict
criminal standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”.
B. Priyanka Das deposed as PW-9 and testified as an eyewitness to the
accident. The insurer’s argument that she couldn't have accurately observed
the truck driver’s negligence was rejected.
C. It was held that the truck’s tyres were high enough to crush a
motorcycle beneath them without leaving any body scratches.
D. While being examined as RW-2, the truck driver admitted that he was
on trial in an ongoing criminal case under FIR No. 198 and confirmed that his
licence and truck were impounded at the scene. He further admitted that he
had never filed a complaint with any Authority on the ground that he was
falsely implicated.
12. Therefore, first, there is no serious challenge by the Insurer to these
findings of fact, and second, from the binding precedents on the point,
namely the registration of the FIR, the Chargesheet discharged the primary
onus, thereby strengthening the case that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the accused in FIR No. 198. We are not referring
to the precedents and will proceed to consider the next issue, namely the
apportionment of compensation between Priyanka Das, on the one hand, and
the parents of the deceased, Sushant Prabhakaran, on the other.
13. Further, it is argued on behalf of the Insurer that the multiplier applied
in determining the compensation is erroneous. The compensation is awarded
to the deceased's parents. Therefore, the multiplier ought to correspond to the
6
age of the deceased's parents. The respondents argued that this argument is
no longer res integra and that the binding precedents of this Court enable the
Tribunal to consider the deceased's age when applying the multiplier. The
MACT and the High Court rejected the Insurer’s argument, holding that the
legal position has evolved and is now settled in favour of using the deceased’s
age. The High Court relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,1
which standardised the multiplier table, and subsequent Judgments began
applying the deceased's age uniformly. Further, a Three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma2 held that the multiplier
should depend on the deceased’s age and not on the dependents’ ages.
Further, the High Court, while relying on Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh,3
clarified that the issue “is no more res integra”. This Court, in Sube Singh
(supra), affirmed the Munna Lal Jain (supra) ruling that the multiplier must
depend on the age of the deceased bachelor, not the parents.
14. To ensure consistent calculations across the country, this Court
introduced a standardised multiplier matrix in Sarla Verma (supra). This
matrix was validated by a Five-Judge Bench in Pranay Sethi.4 Addressing the
specific legal question of which multiplier method would apply to the
bachelors, a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Munna Lal Jain (supra) held
that the multiplier must be determined by the age of the deceased, not by the
age of the dependents. This was later confirmed by a subsequent ruling of this
1 (2009) 6 SCC 121.
2 (2015) 6 SCC 347.
3 (2018) 3 SCC 18.
4 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680.
7
Court in Sube Singh (supra), which held that this rule is no longer res integra.
The deceased, Shushant Prabhakaran, was 33 years old at the time of the
accident. According to the standardised matrix established in Sarla Verma
(supra) and approved in Pranay Sethi (supra), the age bracket of 31 to 35
corresponds directly to a multiplier of 16. Therefore, the MACT and the High
Court correctly applied a multiplier of 16 in determining the compensation.
15. Priyanka Das pursued the claim for compensation asserting a clear case
that she is the wife of the deceased Sushant Prabhakaran. The burden of
proof, even in a summary proceeding as the present one indisputably, is with
Priyanka Das. The Tribunal and the High Court have appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence pleaded to confirm the finding of fact that Priyanka
Das was not his legally wedded wife. We are not reappreciating the evidence
to record a different finding, nor to express our concurrence with the view
taken by the Tribunal and the High Court. The above considerations take us
to the other serious point argued by Mr Prashanto Chandra Sen, learned
Senior Advocate, appearing for Priyanka Das. He argues that the Courts have
rightly relied upon the precedent in the Manjuri Bera5 case but granted 5 per
cent apportionment of the total compensation received on the demise of
Sushant Prabhakaran. The claim of Priyanka Das for injuries is considered
separately and determined by a judgment of even date. In matters such as the
present, mathematical precision is not always sought or applied by the Courts
and the Tribunals, but the claimants are awarded just and fair compensation
and in the process, what is due is not denied; what is undeserving is not
5 Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2007) 10 SCC 643.
8
awarded. For the above reasons, the Impugned Judgment has followed the
binding precedents, and therefore, does not warrant interference.
16. Civil Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.
17. Pending Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No
order as to costs.
..……….…………………J.
[S.V.N. BHATTI]
...…………………………J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
New Delhi;
September 3, 2026.
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 12087-12088 OF 2026
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PRIYANKA DAS AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12089 OF 2026
J U D G M E N T
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. On 10.04.2011 at around 05.30 pm, Sushant Prabhakaran and
Priyanka Das, the Claimant herein, were riding a motorcycle and proceeding
towards Gurgaon. A truck bearing No. HR-55-2812 hit the motorcycle,
resulting in an accident. Sushant Prabhakaran fell under the wheels of the
said truck and died on the spot. The truck bearing No. HR-55-2812 was
insured by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. The Claimant
sustained grievous injuries to several parts of her body. On the complaint of
a passerby/third party, Radhe Shyam Kaushik, FIR No. 198 was registered at
Police Station Gadmukteshwar.
2. The Claimant was admitted immediately as a patient at Anand Hospital,
Meerut, with pelvic fractures and blindness. The Claimant was admitted and
2
treated at Fortis Hospital, Noida, between 12.04.2011 and 11.06.2011.
During the first phase of hospitalisation, the Claimant underwent pelvic
reconstruction. She was further admitted and treated at Kailash Hospital,
Noida, between 11.06.2011 and 26.08.2011 for rectal/colostomy surgeries.
3. On 30.01.2014, the Claimant appeared before Dr. Radhika Tandon
(AIIMS, New Delhi) for assessment of visual impairment. Dr. Radhika Tandon
certified that the Claimant suffered 100 per cent visual disability and is a
handicap as a result of the accident. The Claimant survived the surgeries,
trauma, and pain, and thereafter filed MACT Petition No. 94 of 2014, claiming
compensation of Rs. 12 Crores along with interest at 15 per cent per annum.
At the time of the accident, the Claimant was 35 years old and was working
as Deputy Group Manager with IBM Daksh, Concentrix Daksh Services India
Pvt. Ltd., in Cyber City, Gurgaon. The Claimant sought the sum referred to
above based on her additional qualification, the injuries suffered, the loss of
quality of life, and the need for 24-hour nursing assistance. The
Gastrointestinal Surgery Department, AIIMS, New Delhi, certified on
08.01.2015 that the Claimant requires a permanent colostomy stoma for life.
4. The Claimant examined herself as PW-9 and had PW-1 to PW-11
examined on her behalf, and Exhibits P-1 to P-556. The evidence of PW-9 and
of Deepak Swami, examined as PW-6, a Deputy Manager at IBM Daksh,
Concentrix Daksh Services India Pvt. Ltd. in Cyber City, Gurgaon, is
important for disposing of the Civil Appeals. PW-6 deposed to the Claimant's
salary particulars, the increase in her salary, and that the Claimant remained
on leave without pay from the employer for 19 months.
3
5. The Tribunal assessed functional disability at 60 per cent and noted
that her Cost to Company has increased from 16 lakhs to 19 lakhs per annum
post-accident, and that there is no net loss of income to the Claimant. The
Tribunal, in the Award dated 03.04.2017, calculated the loss of future income
at Rs. 98,78,105/- and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,35,53,298/-.
The Tribunal, on the extent of injuries, the periods of hospitalisation, and the
direct and indirect expenses during the Claimant’s hospitalisation, analysed
the pleadings, evidence and held as follows:
A. Through testimony from multiple witnesses and hospital records from
Anand Hospital, Fortis, Kailash, and Nitin Hospital, the Claimant proved that
she sustained several injuries. These included a pelvic fracture, a severe
degloving injury to the perineal region, and third-degree friction burns to her
bilateral gluteal region.
B. Dr. Radhika Tandon deposed as PW1 and issued a Disability Certificate
as Exhibit P1 confirming that the Claimant sustained 100% permanent
physical disability due to “traumatic bilateral occipital gliosis,” resulting in
total, incurable loss of vision.
C. Dr. Peush Sahni, deposed as PW3, testified that attempts to surgically
restore her large intestine failed, resulting in her needing a permanent stoma.
6. Notwithstanding the above extent of injuries, in deciding the Claimant's
entitlement to compensation, the Tribunal has examined the functional and
physical disability the Claimant has suffered. The Tribunal's consideration of
functional and physical disability is stated as follows:
4
A. While the Medical Certificate proved a 100% physical disability, the
Insurer brought out during cross-examination that the Claimant was still
employed as a Deputy Group Manager and earning a salary.
B. The Claimant was only able to work using highly specialised assistive
software provided by her employer. Because assessing loss of earning capacity
requires looking at employability in the open market, her functional disability
was assessed at 60%.
7. The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence produced in support
of the claim for medical expenses, etc. The important aspects are negligence
and the fastening of liability in the award of compensation. The Tribunal held
as follows:
A. The MACT proceedings are summary in nature, and negligence is
evaluated on the “preponderance of probabilities” rather than the strict
criminal standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”.
B. Ms Priyanka Das deposed as PW-9 and testified as an eyewitness to the
accident. The Insurer’s argument that she couldn’t have accurately observed
the truck’s negligence was rejected.
C. The truck’s tyres are high enough to crush a motorcycle underneath
without leaving any scratches on the body.
D. While being examined as RW-2, the truck driver admitted that he was
on trial in an ongoing criminal case under FIR No. 198 and confirmed that his
licence and truck were impounded at the scene. He further admitted that he
had never filed a complaint with any authority on the ground that he was
falsely implicated.
5
E. The driver, the owner, and the Insurer were held liable jointly and severally.
The Insurer attempted to claim that the vehicle lacked a valid Fitness
Certificate, but the Registration Certificate, which is Exhibit R6, proved
otherwise, thereby making the Insurer legally bound to indemnify the owner.
8. This led to the Insurer filing FAO No. 3608 of 2017 and the Claimant
filing the cross-appeal bearing FAO No. 5436 of 2017 before the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court dismissed FAO No. 3608 of 2017 and
partially allowed the Claimant’s cross-appeal. The primary aspects on which
the High Court modified the Tribunal’s view were the functional disability,
which it increased from 60 per cent to 80 per cent, and the award of a 50 per
cent increase towards future prospects on the proved salary of the Claimant.
Regarding the injuries recorded, the High Court noted as under:
A. The testimonies and records of various medical professionals
established that the Claimant was treated at multiple hospitals, including
Anand Hospital (Meerut), Fortis Hospital (Noida), Kailash Hospital, Heart
Institute (Noida), and Nitin Hospital (Patiala). Despite an attempt to restore
continuity of her large intestine at AIIMS, the procedure failed, leaving her
with a permanent stoma for the rest of her life.
B. The Insurer argued that the Tribunal’s assessment of a 60% functional
disability was too high because the Claimant continued to work at IBM (now
Concentrix Daksh) and had received salary increments. The Claimant (PW9),
in her testimony, clarified that she cannot see at all and manages her work
exclusively through special software provided by her employer. The Tribunal
took into account additional evidence filed via CM No. 4895-CII of 2018, i.e.,
a letter from her employer’s authorised signatory, which stated that since
6
joining in 2003, the Claimant secured only four promotions up to 2018,
confirming as a matter of fact that she lost out on career growth due to the
accident. Based on her severe physical condition, i.e., blindness, pelvic
injuries, permanent stoma and the impact on her career trajectory, it was
held that the 60% assessment was on the lower side and was enhanced to
80% for her functional disability.
C. The Court awarded 50% for loss of future prospects because the
Claimant was treated as a permanent employee at her workplace. Relying on
this Court’s Judgment in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors.1, the
High Court held that the assessment of permanent disablement must focus
on the resulting loss of the Claimant’s income-generating capacity, rather
than merely the medical percentage of limb impairment, thereby making the
multiplier method applicable. Accordingly, a multiplier of ‘16’ was
appropriate given the Claimant’s age.
9. The High Court awarded compensation for attendant charges, special
diet, future medical expenses, loss of income during
hospitalisation/treatment, pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects, and
a lump-sum amount for transportation and accidental expenses for
amenities, as claimed by the Claimant. It is appropriate to present the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court in the following
table: -
1 (2022) 13 SCC 790.
7
HEAD OF CLAIM MACT (RS.) HIGH COURT (RS.)
Hospitalization, Pain &
Suffering
2,00,000/-
10,00,000/-
Medical Expenses / Bills 35,48,798/-
35,48,798/-
Future Medical Expenses Nil
10,00,000/-
Attendant Charges 1,00,000/-
19,20,000/-
Special Diet 50,000/-
2,00,000/-
Transportation Charges Nil
1,50,000/-
Loss of Salary / Income 4,76,500/- (for 5
months, 20 days)
15,97,083/- (for 19
months)
Physical Disability & Loss of
Future Income
90,78,000/-
1,93,66,736/-
Loss of Amenities of Life &
Disfiguration
50,000/-
2,00,000/-
Loss of Prospects of Marriage 50,000/-
5,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 1,35,53,298/-
Rs. 2,94,82,617/-
10. Hence, the Civil Appeals are at the instance of the Insurer and the
Claimant. In Civil Appeal Nos. 12087-12088 of 2026, the Insurer primarily
assails the determination and award of compensation, contending that:
1. There is no functional disability or loss of earning capacity, as her CTC
increased from Rs.16,00,000/- to Rs. 19,00,000/-, and the Claimant
continued to be employed as Deputy Group Manager.
2. The High Court erred in applying Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) and in awarding
50% on future prospects.
8
3. High Court wrongly awarded Rs. 19,20,000/- towards attendant charges
on a multiplier basis without any proof of actual payments to any maid or
driver.
4. Objection is raised to the award of Rs. 10,00,000/- for future medical
expenses, as her medical treatment was covered under IBM’s group
insurance policy.
11. Per contra, the Claimant in Civil Appeal No. 12089 of 2026 prays for
enhancement of compensation principally by contending that: -
1. Her functional disability is 100% because she is completely blind and has
a permanent stoma.
2. Loss of future income should be calculated based on a 100% functional
disability, i.e., Rs. 2,42,08,416/-, instead of Rs. 1,93,66,736/-.
3. Special Diet and future medical expenses are low.
4. She proved actual attendant charges of Rs. 10,000-12,000/- per month
for a maid and a driver, as evidenced by vouchers, i.e., Exhibits Nos. P-
349 to P-406, and the High Court should have awarded Rs. 42,24,000/-.
12. On 17.10.2025, this Court passed an order directing the Claimant to
appear before the Medical Board of Vardhman Mahavir Medical College &
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, for a medical re-examination to determine
the functional and physical disability the Claimant has suffered on account
of the accident injuries. The Medical Board consisted of representatives from
Neurology, Neurosurgery, Ophthalmology, General Surgery, CIO, and
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR). The Report dated 28.02.2026
9
concludes that the Claimant suffered a total permanent physical impairment
of 100 per cent of the whole body due to the said incident.
13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurer contends that the
compensation awarded to the Claimant, even assuming, without admitting,
that the Claimant suffered 100 per cent permanent physical impairment, is
excessive. The Claimant has neither lost employment opportunities nor
earning capacity. Therefore, the functional disability should be the yardstick
for determining compensation under the permissible heads.
14. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the Claimant contends that
the latest Medical Board report from a reputed Government hospital entitles
the Claimant to enhanced compensation, as this is a case of life without
functional limbs/organs. The argument on actual and functional disability in
the case at hand is rendered insignificant by the contemporaneous report.
The Insurer is estopped from disputing or denying additional compensation,
having accepted the suggestion for a fresh evaluation of the Claimant by a
competent Medical Board.
15. We have heard the learned Counsel and perused the record, particularly
the Medical Board’s Report dated 28.02.2026. The said Report is taken on
record and marked as Court Exhibit.
16. The Insurer’s case is on actual and functional disability. Even if the
Claimant has suffered 100 per cent permanent physical impairment from
continuous employment, the compensation awarded is either excessive or she
is not entitled to any more.
17. The contention is merely noted and rejected. The Medical Board’s
opinion will now be the guiding factor in determining the compensation for
10
injuries suffered by the Claimants in the accident dated 10.04.2011. The
Insurer’s argument is tested from both perspectives. Firstly, if the latest report
of the Medical Board indicates less permanent physical impairment to the
Claimant, the Insurer would press the argument for determining the
compensation as assessed by the Medical Board. Therefore, once the Medical
Board’s report is against the Insurer’s argument, it cannot be heard to argue
that the compensation is payable at a lesser percentage than assessed by the
duly constituted Medical Board. Having invited the Medical Board’s opinion,
for which no objection could be taken by either of the parties, and considering
the number of surgeries the Claimant had undergone, the compensation has
to be accordingly re-determined.
18. The medical assessment conducted pursuant to this Court’s directives
evaluates the Claimant’s condition. On 27.02.2026, a multi-disciplinary
Medical Board at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital,
chaired by Dr. Vandana Chakravarty, examined the Claimant. The Medical
Board concluded that the Claimant suffers from a 100% Permanent Physical
Impairment (PPI) affecting her whole body. Further, Exhibit P1, issued by Dr
Radhika Tandon of the Dr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences
at AIIMS New Delhi, established that the Claimant is 100% visually
handicapped due to post-traumatic bilateral cortical blindness. Furthermore,
Exhibit P2, provided by Dr. Peush Sahni of the Department of Gastrointestinal
Surgery at AIIMS, confirmed that the continuity of her large intestine could
not be restored because of a complication due to a communication between
the rectal stump and a wound in her lower back, thus necessitating a
permanent stoma for the rest of her life.
19. The calculation of functional disability depends on assessing the victim’s earning capacity in the open, competitive market, rather than on retention in a specific, highly accommodated role. Evidence before the High Court, specifically the Career Growth Letter dated 06.02.2018 from her employer, confirmed that the Claimant lost out on her normal career growth and promotional progression, including advancement to the positions of General Manager, Director, or Vice President, as a result of the accident. Therecord further indicates that she is able to perform her current duties only through specially created software, flexible working hours, and extreme accommodations provided by her employer as an act of corporate compassion.
20. Based on the official Medical Board Report issued by Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital, which evaluated the Claimant and certified a 100% PPI of the whole body due to post-traumatic head injury with cortical blindness, pelvic fracture, and a permanent colostomy, the compensation calculation shifts from the High Court’s 80% assessment to a 100% functional disability because the Claimant’s capacity to independently secure, sustain, or advance employment in the open labour market has been entirely extinguished.
21. The Court is exercising its discretion in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case to arrive at just and fair compensation payable to
the Claimant. The Claimant is a well-educated lady with a reasonable income.
In the circumstances of the present case, which shall not be treated as a
precedent, a reasonable sum for the loss of marriage prospects, i.e., Rs.
20,00,000/-, is considered. Therefore, the compensation on the basis of 100
12
per cent functional disability/permanent physical impairment needs to be
revised as follows:
A. Monthly Income: Rs. 84,057/-
B. Annual Income: Rs. 10,08,684/- (Rs. 84,057 × 12)
C. Loss of Annual Income (100%): Rs. 10,08,684/-
D. Future Prospects (50%): Rs. 5,04,342/- (50% of Rs. 10,08,684)
E. Total Annual Financial Loss: Rs. 15,13,026/- (Rs. 10,08,684 + Rs.
5,04,342)
F. Multiplier: 16
G. Total Loss of Future Income: Rs. 2,42,08,416/- (Rs. 15,13,026 × 16)
HEADS OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT (IN RS.)
1. Loss of Future Earning Capacity (100% disability,
50% future prospects, 16 multiplier)
2,42,08,416/-
2. Towards Medical Bills reimbursement 35,48,798/-
3. Attendant Charges (Calculated for three
attendants)
(Recalculated for 3 attendants / 24 x 7 care)
28,80,000/-
4. Loss of Income During Treatment (19 months) 15,97,083/-
5. Future Medical Expenses 15,00,000/-
6. Pain, Suffering & Mental Agony determined for the
periods of hospitalisation and the operations
undergone
15,00,000/-
7. Loss of Marriage Prospects 20,00,000/-
8. Special Diet 2,00,000/-
9. Loss of Amenities of Life & Disfiguration 2,00,000/-
10. Transportation Charges 1,50,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 3,77,84,297/-
13
22. Hence, the total compensation awarded is Rs. 3,77,84,297/- (Three
Crores Seventy-Seven Lakhs Eighty-Four Thousand Two Hundred and
Ninety-Seven), with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the
Claim Petition until the entire amount is realised.
23. The Civil Appeal Nos. 12087-12088 of 2026 are dismissed, and the Civil
Appeal No. 12089 of 2026 filed by the Claimant is allowed in part as indicated
above.
24. Pending Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No
order as to costs.
..……….…………………J.
[S.V.N. BHATTI]
...…………………………J.
[N. V. ANJARIA]
New Delhi;
September 3, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment