Sunil Kumar (Totally Disable Represented By Wife) vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
- Court
- Supreme Court
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 1145
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13542 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026)
SUNIL KUMAR (TOTALLY
DISABLE REP. BY WIFE) …APPELLANT
VERSUS
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. …RESPONDENT
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13543 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026)
J U D G M E N T
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave already granted on 17.09.2026.
2. What is impugned in the present two appeals is
common judgment and order dated 06.01.2026 passed by
1
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam , by which the High
Court dealt with MACA No. 130 of 2022 and MACA No. 249
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SNEHA DAS
Date: 2026.10.16
17:58:12 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter “High Court”
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 1 of 27
of 2022. The appeals before the High Court arose from O.P.
(M.V.) No. 642 of 2017 and O.P. (M.V.) No. 1555 of 2017
respectively, decided by common judgment and award dated
15.02.2021 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at
2
Irinjalakuda .
2.1 The Tribunal awarded to the appellant-claimant Sunil
3
Kumar , by way of compensation, Rs.19,91,954/- with 8%
per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition till realization who has been represented by his wife
in the present appeal, having become totally disabled on
account of the injuries suffered in the accident. In the
4
second case, the appellant-claimant Sreejith K.S. came to
be awarded Rs.16,03,400/- by the Tribunal with interest as
above.
2.2 The High Court has enhanced the compensation to the
appellant in the first case from Rs.19,91,954/- to
Rs.36,22,644/-, whereas, in the second case, the amount is
2
Hereinafter “Tribunal”
3
Hereinafter “Appellant in the first case”
4
Hereinafter “Appellant in the second case”
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 2 of 27
enhanced from Rs.16,03,400/- to Rs.27,70,664/- with
interest as above.
2.3 Since both the appellants are dissatisfied with the
extent of enhancement granted by the High Court, they have
approached this Court by way of the present appeals.
3. The claim petitions arose out of one single accident,
which took place on 22.10.2016 at about 7:40 in the
morning. The appellant in the first case-Sunil Kumar was a
pillion rider, whereas the appellant in the second case
named Sreejith K.S. was driving the scooter bearing
Registration No. KL-64/C-6493, both going through
Thrissur-Kodara public road. When they reached near
Paliyekkara toll plaza, all of a sudden, another scooter
bearing Registration No. KL-45/M-9130 which was driven
by original respondent no.1 stated to have come in a rash
and negligent manner and collided with the scooter of the
appellants. The appellants were thrown on the ground and
sustained serious injuries. The appellant – claimant in the
first case, who was a pillion rider claimed Rs.50,00,000/-,
whereas the driver of the scooter – the appellant in the
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 3 of 27
second case claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- towards compensation
for the injuries sustained by them.
3.1 Before proceeding to consider the merits of the
case for enhancement, relevant facts pertaining to both may
be noticed. The appellant in the first case was 43 years of
age on the date of the accident. His case was that he was
engaged in the trading of bakery items and had been earning
Rs.30,000/- per month. He relied on Exhibit-A13 certificate
to contend that he had income from agriculture also. The
Tribunal fixed his income to be Rs. 9,000/- per month
taking the view that the Exhibit-A13 certificate showed that
he was a farmer by occupation.
3.1.1 Before the High Court reliance was placed on the
decision in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal
5
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to
contend that since the accident had taken place in the year
2016, the notional income of the claimant ought to be taken
at least Rs.10,500/- per month. The High Court took into
5
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 4 of 27
account the Exhibit-A13 certificate, in which claimant was
certified to have completed the training in the Field
Operation and Maintenance of Agricultural Machinery and
Implements, to take a view that on the basis of Exhibit-A13,
it could not be concluded that the claimant’s occupation was
farming only. The income was re-fixed by the High Court at
Rs.15,000/- per month. This appellant was held entitled to
be given 25% increase towards future prospects. The
Multiplier was taken at 14 considering that the age of the
appellant was 43 years, on the date of accident.
3.1.2 As per the disability certificate Exhibit-X1 issued
by the Medical Board, looking at the injuries suffered, the
permanent disability was fixed at 75.5%. The contention on
the part of the appellant that functional disability was
required to be taken at 100% was not accepted by the
Tribunal. The High Court did not touch the said aspect and
maintained the disability at 75.5% as stated by the Medical
Board.
3.1.3 It was further held by the High Court that
amounts of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 5 of 27
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘bystander’s
expenses’ and ‘extra nourishment’, deserved to be increased
to Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively. Towards ‘pain
and suffering’ and ‘loss of amenities’, the High Court viewed
that in light of the disability certificate and other
consideration, Rs. 2,50,000/- was required to be granted
under each of the aforesaid heads.
3.1.4 The comparative chart showing the compensation
under the different heads as awarded by the Tribunal and
enhanced by the High Court to the appellant in the first
case-Sunil Kumar is as below,
Head for Compensation Amount
awarded by
Amount
awarded by
Tribunal
High Court
(in Rs.)
(in Rs.)
Loss of earnings 72,000/- 1,80,000/-
(15,000 x 12)
Transportation expenses 10,000/- 10,000/-
Damage to clothing and
articles
2,000/- 2,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/- 20,000/-
Bystander's expenses 12,000/- 30,000/-
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 6 of 27
Medical expenses, including
future medical expenses
4,02,394/- 4,02,394/-
Pain and suffering 1,50,000/- 2,50,000/-
Permanent disability and
loss of earning power
11,41,560/- 23,78,250/-
(15,000 + 25% x
12 x 14 x
75.5%)
Loss of amenities 1,00,000/- 2,50,000/-
Future bystander's
expenses
1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
Total 19,91,954/- 36,22,644/-
3.2 Turning to the relevant facts in respect of the
appellant in second case, the claimant named Sreejith K.S.
was a driver of the ill-fated scooter. He was 22 years of age
at the time of the accident. He claimed similar to the
appellant in the first case, that he was engaged in the
business of bakery items. The Tribunal fixed his notional
income at Rs.8,000/-, against of his assertion of income to
be of Rs.30,000/-. The High Court was of the view that no
evidence was produced to fortify the plea for taking
enhanced figure of income, however, considering the
decision in Ramachandrappa (supra), the High Court re-
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 7 of 27
fixed the amount to Rs.10,500/- per month. The appellant
was held to be entitled for future prospects at 40%, having
regard to his age.
3.2.1 The High Court increased the amount to
Rs.2,50,000/- towards each of the head of ‘pain and
suffering’ and ‘loss of amenities’ from Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs.
1,00,000/- respectively which were granted by the Tribunal.
The total compensation was calculated accordingly. In this
case, Multiplier applied was 18 as the claimant was aged 22
years.
3.2.2 The extent of permanent disability in respect of
the appellant in the second case was certified by the Medical
Board. The Medical Board was of the view that having regard
to the nature of injuries suffered by this appellant-claimant,
disability was required to be assessed at 62%. The High
Court took the view that the percentage of disability for the
appellant in the second case was acceptable as certified by
the Medical Board. It was found that this claimant suffered
injuries in the nature of right volar bartons fracture, right
st nd
scaphoid fracture, fractures of left 1 and 2 metacarpal
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 8 of 27
fracture, left brachial plexuses injury (lower trunk). The said
injuries have potential to affect nerve supplying the arm.
3.2.3 The comparative chart showing compensation
amount under the different heads as awarded by the
Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court to the appellant
in the second case-Sreejith K.S. is as below,
Head of Claim for
Amount
awarded by
Amount
awarded by
Compensation
Tribunal
High Court
(in Rs.)
(in Rs.)
Loss of earnings 64,000/- 84,000/-
(10,500 x 8)
Transportation expenses 10,000/- 10,000/-
Damage to clothing and
motorcycle
2,000/- 2,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/- 2,000/-
Bystander's expenses 9,300/- 9,300/-
Medical expenses 1,94,720/- 1,94,720/-
Pain and suffering 1,50,000/- 2,50,000/-
Permanent disability and loss of
earning power
10,71,360/- 19,68,624/-
(10,500 +
40% x 12 x
18 x 62%)
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 9 of 27
Loss of amenities 1,00,000/- 2,50,000/-
Total 16,03,380 /-
(rounded off
to 16,03,400)
27,70,664 /-
4. Heard learned counsel Ms. Aarthi Rajan for the
appellants and learned counsel Mr. Shubham Janghu for
the respondent in both the appeals, at length.
5. Proceeding to analyse the merits of the case for
enhancement in the compensation put forward in both the
appeals, firstly taking the case of the appellant-Sunil
Kumar, who suffered serious head injuries and other
injuries in the accident. While considering the monthly
income of the appellant in the first case, the High Court,
while referring to Exhibit-A13 certificate, observed that he
had completed training in Field Operation and Maintenance
of Agricultural Machinery and Implements, however from
the certificate, it would not be suggested that the appellant
was engaged in farming activity alone.
5.1. The High Court’s view was correct. The appellant
could reasonably be presumed to be engaged in other
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 10 of 27
earning activities also. Therefore, the High Court was
justified in taking Rs.15,000/- per month to be his monthly
income. Furthermore, the High Court took the loss of
earning, increasing the same from 8 to 12 months. For this
appellant, 40% ‘future prospects’ came to be awarded.
5.1.1 In the case of the appellant, since he was 43 years
of age, the multiplier of 14 applied, which was in accordance
with Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
6
Corporation & Another . The reasoning, the finding, and
the amount awarded by the High Court on this score need
no interference.
5.1.2 The Medical Board certified the medical disability
of this appellant to the extent of 75.5%. However, the extent
of permanent disability cannot be realistically assessed
without considering the nature of the injuries and the effect
thereof on the life and state of living of the appellant. The
injuries which he suffered, included severe head injuries,
open diffuse axonal injury, midbrain contusion with Weber’s
6
(2009) 6 SCC 121
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 11 of 27
syndrome and left knee penetrating injury. The functional
effect of those injuries has to be estimated. They have grave
consequences on the earning capacity of the appellant. The
appellant would require an attendant and a bystander to
look after him throughout his life. The appellant would be
suffering from psychiatric disability of higher grade.
5.1.3 Therefore, even though the Medical Board
certified the medical disability to be 75.5%, the functional
effect can be said to be debilitating for the appellant to the
extent of 100%. One who remains dependent on another and
requires an attendant throughout his life can be said to be
suffering from 100% functional disability. The appellant
would not be able to do his own work, much less engage in
earning activity for himself and his family, leading to total
loss of working capacity.
5.1.4 In Shankar Dutt vs. United India Insurance Co.
7
Ltd. and Others , this Court elaborated the concept of
permanent disability, highlighting the components thereof,
7
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1193
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 12 of 27
the prime of which is loss of earning capacity. The claimant,
who becomes partially or completely disabled and lose
forever the capacity to earn, is a permanently disabled
person, and the amount of compensation on the said count
has to be determined in such context.
5.1.5 The Court drew the distinction between medical
disability and functional disability,
‘A conceptual distinction has to be drawn between the
medically certified disability resulting out of physical
injury or impairment on one hand, and the long-term
repercussions on the injured, on his or her life and
activities on the other hand. The functional disability
is one which is suffered and felt by the injured in his
day-to-day life or in his avocation, occupation,
business or profession.’
(Para 5.6.1)
5.1.5 (a) It was further observed,
‘The medical opinion may have suggested that physical
impairment on account of the injury is to a particular
extent, however its functional effect may be greater. In
fact, it could be reasonable to state that the functional
incapacity resulting out of a particular bodily injury,
which may be impairment or amputation, would be
higher and greater than what may be medically
perceived.’
(Para 5.6.2)
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 13 of 27
5.1.5 (b) The Court next explained,
‘When it comes to assessing the compensation in the
context of the injury suffered, what matters is the
extent by which the functions of an injured person
suffers, and not what the doctor may have judged in
terms of medical standards. The functional aspect of
the disability arising out of injury has correlation with
the age of the injured, his occupation, engagement in
work or avocation, the adversarial effect on the earning
capacity of the injured, which would again depend
upon the nature of work or earning activity with which
and in which the injured is engaged and such other
relevant considerations.’
(Para 5.6.3)
5.1.6 In Jithendran vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
8
and Another , this Court emphasised for taking realistic
approach while assessing the permanent disability,
‘The courts should strive to provide a realistic
recompense having regard to the realities of life, both
in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and
its impact including the income generating capacity
of the claimant. In cases of similar nature, wherein
the claimant is suffering severe cognitive dysfunction
and restricted mobility, the courts should be mindful
of the fact that even though the physical disability is
assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100%
insofar as the claimant's loss of earning capacity is
concerned.’
(Para 14)
8
(2022) 15 SCC 620
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 14 of 27
5.1.7 In Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
9
Priyanka Das and Others , the Court again highlighted the
concept of functional disability as under,
‘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…’
(Para 19)
5.1.8 Therefore, because of the injuries, the appellant
became permanently disabled and effectively stood deprived
of his earning capacity in open competitive market. The
distinction between medical disability and functional
disability, as highlighted from the decision in Shankar Dutt
(supra), applies for arriving at the functional disability in the
present case also. In Jithendran (supra), this Court
underlined the need to adopt a realistic approach for
arriving at the figure of permanent disability, which
principle would also equally apply.
9
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1760
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 15 of 27
5.1.9 Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered
by the appellant in the first case and the resultant effect on
his body and activity, it would be reasonable to take the
permanent functional disability to the extent of 100%, and
the amount towards loss of earning capacity would be
calculated thus- Rs. 15,000/- monthly income multiplied by
12 which brings total annual income of Rs. 1,80,000/-.
Since the permanent disability is to the extent of 100%,
which will come to Rs. 1,80,000/-, further multiplied by
25% towards ‘future prospects, which comes to Rs. 45,000/-
, therefore, Rs. 1,80,000/- + 45,000/-, total of which Rs.
2,25,000/-, multiplied by multiplier figure of 14, brings total
amount of Rs. 31,50,000/- to be awarded towards ‘loss of
earning capacity’ on the basis of 25% future prospects and
100% disability.
5.2 There is another head under which the amount of
compensation awarded by the High Court is inadequate, and
not conforming to the principles laid down by this Court in
that regard, which is under the head of ‘attendant charges’
or ‘bystander charges’ to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. The
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 16 of 27
principles were stated in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and
10
Others , to arrive at a just and reasonable amount towards
attendant charges in case of serious injuries where the
person has become disabled almost for lifetime.
5.2.1 In Kajal (supra), the appellant-Kajal was a young
school going girl who suffered serious accidental injuries
resulting in damage to the brain. As far as ‘attendant
charges’ are concerned, the High Court awarded Rs.2,500/-
per month for 44 years, which method was not approved by
this Court. It was observed that the multiplier system was
used to balance out the various factors and the same should
be followed not only for determining the compensation on
account of loss of income or dependency but also for
determining the attendant charges.
5.2.2 The method or system based on multiplier
application was recognized by this Court in Gobald Motor
11
Service Ltd. vs. R.M.K. Veluswami . It was stated that the
multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of
10
(2020) 4 SCC 413
11
AIR 1962 SC 1
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 17 of 27
interest payable on the lumpsum amount awarded, the
longevity of the claimant and also the aspects such as
uncertainties of life.
5.2.3 By applying the multiplier method to adequately
compensate the appellant under the head of attendant
charges, the following amount would be awardable: monthly
income Rs.15,000/- multiplied by 12, to arrive at annual
income to Rs.1,80,000/-, further multiplied by multiplier
figure 14, which comes to Rs.25,20,000/-. The aforesaid
amount as arrived at above would be just compensation
towards the ‘attendant charges’ to the appellant, who would
need such assistance almost throughout his life.
5.3 In respect of ‘future medical expenses’, the High Court
has granted Rs.10,00,000/- by placing reliance on the
decision in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
Therefore, the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is properly
awarded to be just and proper. It is maintained. The High
Court has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards ‘transportation
expenses’, Rs.2,000/- towards ‘clothes and articles’,
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 18 of 27
Rs.20,000/- towards ‘extra nourishment’, which are just
and proper.
5.4 The amount awarded under the head of ‘medical
expenses including future medical expenses’ to the tune of
Rs.4,02,394/-, is also proper. Under the ‘loss of amenities’,
Rs.2,50,000/- and the equivalent amount for ‘pain and
suffering’ are also just and proper. They do not require any
interference or increase.
5.5 As a result of the foregoing discussion, the total
compensation that would be payable to the appellant in the
first case, named Sunil Kumar, would be as under,
Heads Amounts
Loss of earnings 15,000 × 12 = 1,80,000/-
Transportation expenses 10,000/-
Damage to clothing and
motorcycle
2,000/-
Extra nourishment 20,000/-
Bystander's expenses 15,000 × 12 × 14 =
25,20,000/-
Medical expenses 4,02,394/-
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 19 of 27
Future medical expenses 10,00,000/-
Pain and suffering 2,50,000/-
Permanent disability and loss
of earning power
31,50,000/-
[15,000 x 12 = 1,80,000/-
1,80,000 x 100% = 1,80,000/-
1,80,000 x 25% = 45,000/-
45,000+1,80,000= 2,25,000/-
2,25,000 x 14 = 31,50,000/-]
Loss of amenities 2,50,000/-
Total 77,84,394/-
6. As far as the appellant in the second case is
concerned, he was the driver of the ill-fated scooter, aged 22
years on the date of the accident. As regards income, the
claim of this appellant was on the same lines as of the
appellant in the first case, claiming that he had been
engaged in bakery items and earned Rs.30,000/- per month.
Since there was no evidence produced in fortification, the
High Court was justified in rejecting the claim about the
income by this appellant to such extent.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 20 of 27
6.1 The High Court, however on the basis of the decision
in Ramachandrappa (supra), took his notional monthly
income to be Rs.10,500/- to commit no error. This appellant
was granted ‘loss of future prospects’ to the extent of 40%,
having regard to his age. The multiplier applied in his case
was 18, which was in accordance with the decision in Sarla
Verma (supra).
6.2 In respect of this appellant, the Medical Board certified
the medical disability to the extent of 62%. The injuries
suffered by the appellant were serious. They included right
volar bartons fracture, right scaphoid fracture, fractures of
st nd
left 1 and 2 metacarpal fracture and left brachial plexuses
injury (lower trunk). The said injuries have potential to affect
nerve supplying arm. Therefore, because of the injuries, the
appellant became permanently disabled and effectively lost
his earning capacity in the open competitive market.
6.2.1 The distinction between medical disability and
functional disability, as highlighted from the decision in
Shankar Dutt (supra), in Jithendran (supra) and in
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 21 of 27
Reliance General Insurance Ltd. (supra), applies for
arriving at the functional disability in the present case also.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant
in the second case and the resultant effect on his body and
life activity, it would be reasonable to take the permanent
functional disability to the extent of 80%. The amount
would be calculated as under - Rs. 10,500/- notional income
multiplied by 12, which comes to Rs. 1,26,000/- as annual
income. Since the permanent disability is assessed at 80%,
Rs.1,26,000/- multiplied by 80% which comes to
Rs.1,00,800/- and that figure multiplied by 40%, which is
‘loss of future prospects’ Rs. 40,320/- + 1,00,800/- and total
amount is to be multiplied by the figure of 18, which comes
to total Rs.25,40,160/- to be awarded towards ‘permanent
disability and loss of earning power’.
6.3 This appellant was granted Rs.9,300/- towards
‘bystander charges’. The principles discussed in Kajal
12
(supra) and also in Hansraj vs. Mukesh Nath and Others ,
would also suggest that the attendant charges or bystander
12
2026 INSC 454
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 22 of 27
charges have to be calculated on the basis of the multiplier
method. The amount would be calculated as notional
income per month Rs. 10,500/- multiplied by 12 and further
multiplied by the figure of multiplier 18, which come to
Rs.22,68,000/-.
6.4 Considering the nature of injuries in this case,
the future medical expenses, taking suggestions from
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (supra),
could be reasonably granted to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/-.
The appellant in the second case also would be entitled to
get enhancement under the heads of ‘pain and suffering’ and
‘loss of amenities’ to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- under each
head, as awarded in the case of the first appellant.
6.5 Further, the appellant in the second case was an
energetic, able-bodied youngster at the time of the incident.
Therefore, the loss towards marriage prospects would have
to be recognized while determining the amount of
compensation for this appellant - claimant. Under the head
of loss of marriage prospects, the principles laid down by
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 23 of 27
13
this Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar , would be relied
upon, and the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- would be a proper
amount to be awarded for ‘loss of future prospects of
marriage’.
6.6 The amounts awarded under other heads by the High
Court do not warrant any interference.
6.7 As a result of the foregoing discussion, the total
compensation that would be payable to the appellant in the
second case, named Sreejith K.S., would be as under,
Heads Amounts
Loss of earnings 10,500 x 12 =1,26,000/-
Transportation expenses 10,000/-
Damage to clothing and
motorcycle
2,000/-
Extra nourishment 20,000/-
Bystander's expenses 10,500 x 12 x 18 = 22,68,000/-
Medical expenses 1,94,720/-
13
(2011) 1 SCC 343
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 24 of 27
Future medical expenses 8,00,000/-
Pain and suffering 2,50,000/-
Permanent disability and loss
of earning power
25,40,160/-
[10,500 x 12 = 1,26,000
1,26,000 x 80%= 1,00,800
1,00,800 x 40% = 40,320
40,320+1,00,800=1,41,120/-
1,41,120 x 18 = 25,40,160/-]
Loss of amenities 2,50,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects 5,00,000/-
Total 69,60,880/-
7. Accordingly, the appellant in the first case is held
entitled to a total amount of Rs.77,84,394/- with interest,
the additional compensation payable to him would be
Rs.41,61,750/-. However, this Court deems it fit to grant
interest at 6.5% per annum from the date of filing claim
petition till realisation on the additional amount instead of
8% as awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court on the
originally granted amount.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 25 of 27
7.1. The appellant in the second case would be entitled to
total compensation of Rs. 69,60,880/- with interest, and the
differential additional amount payable would come to
Rs.41,90,216/- to be paid with interest at 6.5% from the
date of application till actual payment.
7.2 Both the appellants will get the additional amount with
6.5% interest per annum to run from the date of filing of the
claim petition till realization.
8. The respondent- insurance company shall deposit, in
both the cases, the additional amount of compensation
awarded with interest calculated as above, within 6 weeks
from the date of this judgment, before the Tribunal
concerned.
9. The Tribunal shall disburse the amount in favour of
the respective appellants, after seeking proof of
identification and undertaking necessary procedure in that
regard, by directly transferring the amount into the Bank
Accounts of the appellants-claimants concerned.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 26 of 27
10. Both the appeals accordingly succeed and are allowed
in the above terms and to the aforesaid extent.
Any interlocutory applications, if pending, shall cease
to survive in view of the disposal of the main appeals.
.………………………...J.
[S.V.N. BHATTI]
………………………….J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
NEW DELHI;
October 15, 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026
Page 27 of 27