Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has more than doubled the compensation of two scooter riders injured in a 2016 accident near the Paliyekkara toll plaza in Kerala. It held that a claimant with a 75.5% medically assessed disability, who needs a permanent attendant and cannot earn, must be treated as 100% functionally disabled, and it computed attendant charges on the multiplier method. Sunil Kumar’s award rose to Rs 77,84,394 and the co-claimant’s to Rs 69,60,880.
On 22 October 2016, a scooter allegedly driven rashly and negligently collided with the scooter ridden by Sreejith K.S., with Sunil Kumar as pillion rider, near the Paliyekkara toll plaza on the Thrissur–Kodara road. Sunil Kumar, then 43, suffered severe head injuries, including diffuse axonal injury and a midbrain contusion with Weber’s syndrome; the Medical Board assessed his disability at 75.5%. Sreejith, then 22, suffered multiple wrist and hand fractures and a brachial plexus injury, assessed at 62%.
The MACT, Irinjalakuda awarded Rs 19,91,954 and Rs 16,03,400 in a common award of 15 February 2021. The Kerala High Court, on 6 January 2026, raised these to Rs 36,22,644 and Rs 27,70,664, fixing Sunil Kumar’s income at Rs 15,000 a month (multiplier 14) and Sreejith’s at Rs 10,500 (multiplier 18). Both claimants appealed further.
The Key Question Before the Court
When a claimant’s medically certified disability is below 100% but he needs lifelong attendance and cannot work, how should loss of earning capacity and attendant charges be computed?
Functional Disability, Attendant Charges and the Multiplier
Writing for the Bench, Justice Anjaria upheld the High Court’s income findings and multipliers under Sarla Verma, (2009) 04 SC CK 0222. The decisive shift came on disability. Relying on Shankar Dutt, Jithendran, (2021) 10 SC CK 0073 and Reliance General Insurance v. Priyanka Das, (2026) 09 SC CK 0186, the Court said “what matters is the extent by which the functions of an injured person suffers”, not the percentage on the medical certificate. Because Sunil Kumar needs a permanent attendant and cannot earn, “the functional effect can be said to be debilitating for the appellant to the extent of 100%.” Sreejith’s functional disability was fixed at 80%.
On attendant (bystander) charges, the Court followed Kajal, (2020) 02 SC CK 0004 and Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath, (2026) 05 SC CK 0008 and applied the multiplier method: Rs 15,000 × 12 × 14 = Rs 25,20,000 for Sunil Kumar and Rs 10,500 × 12 × 18 = Rs 22,68,000 for Sreejith. Future medical expenses were set at Rs 10 lakh and Rs 8 lakh, and Sreejith, a young man, was awarded Rs 5 lakh for loss of marriage prospects under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2010) 10 SC CK 0022. Loss of earning power was computed with 25% future prospects for Sunil Kumar and 40% for Sreejith.
What the Court Actually Held
- Sunil Kumar’s functional disability is 100%, and his total compensation is Rs 77,84,394 (additional Rs 41,61,750).
- Sreejith K.S.’s functional disability is 80%, and his total compensation is Rs 69,60,880 (additional Rs 41,90,216).
- Attendant charges are to be computed on the multiplier basis.
- The insurer must deposit the additional amounts with 6.5% interest from the date of the claim petition within six weeks, for direct transfer to the claimants’ bank accounts.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It confirms that functional, not medical, disability drives loss of earning capacity.
- It applies the multiplier method to lifelong attendant charges, which can substantially raise awards in head-injury cases.
- It recognises loss of marriage prospects for a young, seriously injured claimant.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants’ Counsel
- Lead evidence on functional loss: inability to work, need for an attendant, daily-life limitations.
- Claim attendant charges on a multiplier basis, citing Kajal and this judgment.
- For young claimants, claim loss of marriage prospects as a separate head.
For Insurers
- Expect courts to look past the medical certificate where the claimant is wholly unable to earn.
- Contest income claims with evidence; the Court still refused unproven Rs 30,000 monthly incomes.
Key Takeaways
- Functional disability can exceed the medical percentage.
- Need for a lifelong attendant is a strong indicator of 100% functional loss.
- Attendant charges are multiplied, not paid as a lump sum guess.
- Interest on the enhancement was fixed at 6.5% a year.
Frequently Asked Questions
Because the claimant needs a permanent attendant and cannot earn; the Court looks at the effect on his functions and earning capacity.
Monthly income × 12 × the applicable multiplier: Rs 25,20,000 for Sunil Kumar and Rs 22,68,000 for Sreejith.
No. The Court upheld the High Court’s figures of Rs 15,000 and Rs 10,500 for want of proof of higher income.
Conclusion
The judgment is a useful template for serious-injury motor accident claims, showing how each head of compensation is built and why the real-life effect of an injury outweighs a number on a disability certificate.
Practical takeaway: In grievous injury claims, prove the claimant’s dependence on an attendant and inability to work; it can convert a partial medical disability into 100% functional disability and justify multiplier-based attendant charges.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com
Visit CourtKutchehry →