By Legum Pacific Editorial ·
What happened?
Two claim petitions arose from one road accident in October 2016. Both claimants were on a scooter that collided with another scooter which the court described as coming in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants were thrown to the ground and suffered serious injuries. The first claimant became totally disabled and was represented by his wife in the appeal. The second claimant suffered multiple fractures and an injury to the brachial plexus that could affect nerves supplying the arm.
What does the law say?
The judgment uses familiar principles in motor‑accident claims:
- Notional income (an assumed monthly income when actual income is not proved) can be fixed by the court.
- The multiplier method converts an annual loss into a single lump sum. The multiplier depends on the claimant’s age and reflects expected remaining years of life and work.
- A distinction is drawn between medical disability (the percentage certified by doctors) and functional disability (how the injury affects ordinary life and earning capacity). The Court said functional disability can be higher than the medical percentage when day‑to‑day life and ability to earn are severely affected.
- Attendant or bystander charges (payment for care or help) can be calculated using the multiplier method.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The judgment was delivered by Justices N.V. Anjaria and S.V.N. Bhatti in the appeals arising from motor‑accident claims.
Key findings and calculations in the judgment:
- For the first appellant (aged 43): the Court accepted a notional monthly income of Rs.15,000. Although the Medical Board certified 75.5% medical disability, the Court held that the functional disability for loss of earning capacity should be treated as 100% given the nature of injuries and the need for lifelong care. The Court applied multiplier 14. The Court also applied the multiplier method for attendant (bystander) charges. The Court maintained Rs.10,00,000 for future medical expenses and increased amounts for pain and loss of amenities where appropriate.
- The Medical Board had certified 62% medical disability; the Court assessed functional disability at 80% for calculating loss of earning capacity. The Court applied the multiplier method for attendant charges and awarded Rs.5,00,000 for loss of marriage prospects in this case. Future medical expenses were fixed at Rs.8,00,000 for this claimant.
Final money awards and directions:
- The Court held the first appellant entitled to a total amount of Rs.77,84,394 and set out the additional amount and interest to be paid as stated in the judgment.
- The Court held the second appellant entitled to a total amount of Rs.69,60,880 and set out the differential additional amount and interest as stated in the judgment.
- The respondent insurer was directed to deposit the additional amounts with interest within six weeks before the Tribunal concerned.
- The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amounts after seeking proof of identification and by directly transferring them into the appellants’ bank accounts.
What does this mean for ordinary people?
- If a claimant cannot prove exact income, courts may fix a notional income and apply a multiplier to arrive at future loss. That affects people with informal earnings or small businesses.
- A medical disability percentage is not always the final word. Courts can assess functional disability to reflect real loss of earning capacity and daily functioning.
- Where a claimant needs long‑term care, attendant charges may be assessed using the multiplier method rather than a small monthly allowance.
- Insurers may be required to deposit additional awards quickly and pay interest as directed by the court.
Key points
- The Court distinguished medical disability and functional disability and allowed higher awards where earning capacity is effectively lost.
- Notional income and the multiplier method were used to calculate lump‑sum awards for future loss and attendant charges.
- The insurer was ordered to deposit the additional amounts with interest; the Tribunal was to transfer funds directly to the claimants’ bank accounts after identity checks.
Source: Supreme Court of India (official judgment) (opens in a new tab) · Sunil Kumar (Totally Disable Represented By Wife) v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., C.A. Nos. 13542–13543 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21292 and 21441 of 2026), 2026 INSC 1145