100% Functional Disability Recognised Despite Continued Employment; Compensation for Blindness and Permanent Stoma Enhanced to ₹3.77 Crore by Supreme Court

On 10 April 2011, a truck bearing registration no. HR-55-2812 struck a motorcycle near Brijghat Bridge. Sushant Prabhakaran, the motorcycle rider, died after being run over by the truck, while Priyanka Das, the pillion rider, sustained grievous injuries, including pelvic fractures, permanent bilateral cortical blindness and injuries necessitating a permanent colostomy stoma.

Priyanka Das filed separate motor accident claims: one concerning compensation arising from Sushant Prabhakaran’s death and another concerning her own injuries.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the truck driver negligent and fastened liability on the insurer.

In the death claim, it awarded Rs. 82,56,152, but declined to recognise Priyanka Das as the deceased’s legally wedded wife and awarded her only Rs. 5,00,000, later enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 7,50,000.

In the injury claim, the Tribunal assessed her functional disability at 60% and awarded Rs. 1,35,53,298. The High Court enhanced the functional disability to 80%, applied 50% future prospects, and increased the award to Rs. 2,94,82,617.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, a Medical Board assessed her permanent physical impairment at 100% of the whole body.

Whether the multiplier for computing loss of dependency in a claim arising from the deceased’s death should be based on the age of the deceased or the age of the dependants.

Whether Priyanka Das had established that she was the legally wedded wife of Sushant Prabhakaran and was therefore entitled to a corresponding share of the death compensation.

Whether the claimant’s functional disability and loss of future earning capacity should be assessed at 80% or 100%, notwithstanding her continued employment with substantial workplace accommodations.

Whether the amounts awarded under future prospects, attendant charges, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of marriage prospects required further enhancement.

The Court applied the principle that motor accident claims are adjudicated summarily and negligence is established on a preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

It relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, which standardised the multiplier table; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, which approved the multiplier framework and principles governing future prospects; and Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh, which establish that the multiplier is determined with reference to the age of the deceased, not the age of the dependants.

The Court also applied Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. concerning entitlement to compensation by a claimant who may not qualify as a legal heir or dependant.

For permanent disability claims, Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar was applied for the principle that compensation must reflect the claimant’s loss of earning capacity and not merely the medical percentage of physical impairment.

Functional disability is assessed by considering the claimant’s capacity to secure, sustain and advance employment in the open labour market, rather than continued employment in a specially accommodated position.

The Court upheld the concurrent finding that the truck driver was rash and negligent, noting the eyewitness testimony, FIR, chargesheet and the driver’s own admissions regarding the criminal case and seizure of the vehicle and licence.

For the death claim, the deceased was 33 years old; accordingly, the multiplier of 16 was correctly selected under the Sarla Verma–Pranay Sethi framework, notwithstanding that compensation was principally apportioned to his parents.

The Court declined to interfere with the finding that Priyanka Das had not proved a legally valid marriage, but accepted the limited apportionment made in her favour under the principle recognised in Manjuri Bera.

In the injury claim, the Court treated the Medical Board’s 100% whole-body impairment assessment, complete blindness, permanent stoma and evidence of impaired career progression as demonstrating 100% functional disability.

Her continued employment did not negate loss of earning capacity because it depended on specially developed software, flexible working arrangements and exceptional accommodation by her employer.

Applying a monthly income of Rs. 84,057, 50% future prospects and a multiplier of 16, the Court calculated loss of future earning capacity at Rs. 2,42,08,416 and revised the other heads of compensation, including attendant charges, future medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects.

In the injury claim, the insurer’s appeal was dismissed and Priyanka Das’s appeal was partly allowed.

The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 2,94,82,617 to Rs. 3,77,84,297, comprising compensation for 100% functional disability, medical expenses, attendant charges, loss of income during treatment, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects, special diet, loss of amenities and transportation.

Interest was awarded at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

No order was made as to costs.