A disability certificate measures the body; compensation must measure the life. In Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 INSC 1145, decided on 15 October 2026, a bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti enhanced the compensation of two scooter-borne accident victims from Kerala, assessing a head-injury victim with a 75.5% medical disability at 100% functional disability because he has lost his earning capacity entirely and needs an attendant for the rest of his life. The judgment is a careful worked example of how tribunals should translate medical findings into money.
The accident and the course below
On 22 October 2016, near the Paliyekkara toll plaza on the Thrissur–Kodara road, a scooter carrying the two claimants collided with another two-wheeler. Sunil Kumar, the 43-year-old pillion rider, suffered severe head injuries — an open diffuse axonal injury and midbrain contusion with Weber’s syndrome — along with a penetrating knee injury. The medical board certified 75.5% disability. Sreejith K.S., the 22-year-old rider, sustained multiple fractures of the wrist and hand and a brachial plexus injury, certified at 62%.
The Tribunal at Irinjalakuda pegged Sunil Kumar’s income at ₹9,000 per month on the strength of an agricultural training certificate and awarded ₹19.91 lakh. The Kerala High Court raised the income to ₹15,000 and the award to ₹36.22 lakh. For Sreejith, the Tribunal’s ₹16.03 lakh became ₹27.70 lakh on a notional income of ₹10,500. Both claimants pressed on to the Supreme Court.
From 75.5% on paper to 100% in life
Relying on its decisions in Shankar Dutt, Jithendran and Reliance General Insurance v. Priyanka Das, the Court held that the medical percentage understated the true impact. Sunil Kumar depends on others for the activities of daily living, requires an attendant and bystander for life, and has lost his working capacity altogether. His functional disability was therefore fixed at 100%. Sreejith, whose dominant-hand and plexus injuries ended his capacity for manual work, was assessed at 80%.
The recomputed award
| Head | Sunil Kumar (₹) | Sreejith K.S. (₹) |
|---|---|---|
| Loss of earnings (laid-up period) | 1,80,000 | 1,26,000 |
| Attendant / bystander (multiplier method) | 25,20,000 | 22,68,000 |
| Medical expenses (incurred) | 4,02,394 | 1,94,720 |
| Future medical expenses | 10,00,000 | 8,00,000 |
| Loss of earning power (with future prospects) | 31,50,000 | 25,40,160 |
| Pain and suffering | 2,50,000 | 2,50,000 |
| Loss of amenities | 2,50,000 | 2,50,000 |
| Loss of marriage prospects | — | 5,00,000 |
| Transport, nourishment, clothing & vehicle damage | 32,000 | 32,000 |
| Total | 77,84,394 | 69,60,880 |
The enhanced amounts — ₹41.61 lakh and ₹41.90 lakh over the High Court figures — carry interest at 6.5% per annum from the date of the claim petitions. The insurer must deposit the sums within six weeks, and the Tribunal is to disburse by direct bank transfer after verifying identity.
Lessons for claim preparation
- Prove the vocation, not just the injury. The gap between ₹9,000 as a notional farmer and the claimed ₹30,000 as a bakery trader shows how income evidence shapes the award at every level.
- Capitalise the attendant. Where the need is lifelong, attendant charges computed on the multiplier method can rival the loss-of-earnings head itself — here they exceeded ₹25 lakh.
- Future medical costs are a distinct head. Neurological injuries justified ₹10 lakh for future treatment, separate from the expenses already incurred.
- Young victims have additional heads. For an unmarried 22-year-old, loss of marriage prospects was separately compensated.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Compensation in motor accident claims depends on the evidence in each case, and the judgment should be read in full before being relied upon.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between medical and functional disability?
Medical disability is the percentage a medical board assigns to the physical impairment. Functional disability asks what the injury has done to the claimant's capacity to earn a living in his actual vocation. Following the line of authority in Jithendran and related cases, the Supreme Court reiterated that the functional figure, not the medical one, drives the loss-of-earning computation.
How were attendant charges calculated?
Instead of awarding a lump sum or a bare monthly figure, the Court applied the multiplier method, consistent with its approach in Kajal. For the 43-year-old victim it allowed ₹15,000 per month multiplied by 12 and by the multiplier of 14 — ₹25,20,000 — recognising that the need for a bystander will continue for life and must be capitalised like any other future loss.
What did the two claimants finally receive?
The pillion rider with severe head injuries received ₹77,84,394 — an increase of ₹41,61,750 over the High Court award — on a 100% functional disability basis. The 22-year-old driver, with a 62% medical disability assessed at 80% functional disability, received ₹69,60,880, including ₹5 lakh for loss of marriage prospects. Interest on the enhanced amounts runs at 6.5% per annum from the claim petition.
Does the judgment help claimants in Delhi tribunals?
Yes. The principles are statute-based and apply to every Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, including those in Delhi. Claimants with serious head or orthopaedic injuries should place vocational evidence on record — what work they did and whether they can resume it — because that evidence, more than the disability certificate alone, determines the functional percentage a tribunal can adopt.