Supreme Court on Functional Disability in Motor Accident Claims: Lifelong Attendant Need Means 100% Disability – Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio [2026 INSC 1145]

In Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2026 INSC 1145), the Supreme Court held that functional disability in motor accident claims, not the percentage certified by a medical board, determines loss of earning capacity. It enhanced compensation for two scooter riders injured near the Paliyekkara toll plaza, Kerala, on 22.10.2016 (paras 3, 5.1–6.5). For the pillion rider with severe head injuries who needs an attendant for life, functional disability was fixed at 100% against the certified 75.5% (paras 5.1.2–5.1.3). Attendant charges must be computed by the multiplier method (paras 5.2–5.2.3). Total awards rose to Rs. 77,84,394 and Rs. 69,60,880, with 6.5% interest on the enhanced amounts (paras 7–10).

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation for injury – Permanent disability – Functional disability v. medical disability – Loss of earning capacity – Attendant charges – Multiplier method – Future medical expenses – Loss of marriage prospects.

Held: (i) Loss of earning capacity is the main component of compensation for permanent disability, and it is measured by functional disability, which may exceed the medically certified percentage (paras 5.1–5.1.8).

(ii) A claimant who requires an attendant for life due to severe head injury is 100% functionally disabled (para 5.1.3).

(iii) Attendant charges for near-lifelong disability must be computed using the multiplier, not a lump sum (paras 5.2–5.2.3, 6.3).

(iv) Loss of open-market employability from hand, wrist and nerve injuries justified 80% functional disability against 62% certified (paras 6.2–6.2.1).

(v) A young claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of marriage prospects (para 6.5).

(paras 5–10)

Judgment Intelligence

Final Outcome: Both appeals allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs. 77,84,394 (Sunil Kumar) and Rs. 69,60,880 (Sreejith K.S.); 6.5% interest on enhanced amounts from date of claim petition; deposit within six weeks.

Case: Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., with Sreejith K.S. v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1145

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 13542 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026), with Civil Appeal No. 13543 of 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision: 15 October 2026

Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria

Relevant Acts & Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (compensation for injury)

Impugned Order: Judgment of the Kerala High Court enhancing the award of the MACT, Irinjalakuda

Source: Supreme Court of India

Key Holdings

• Medical disability and functional disability are distinct; compensation follows the impact on earning capacity (paras 5.1.4–5.1.8).
• Severe cognitive impairment requiring lifelong care justifies 100% functional disability (para 5.1.3).
• Attendant charges are a recurring loss and must be capitalised by the multiplier (paras 5.2–5.2.3).
• Functional disability is assessed against the claimant's capacity to earn in the open market (paras 6.2–6.2.1).
• Future medical expenses and loss of marriage prospects are separate heads where proved (paras 6.4–6.5).
• Courts must take a realistic, not mechanical, approach in injury compensation (paras 5.1.4–5.1.8).

Brief Facts

On 22.10.2016, a scooter carrying Sreejith K.S. as rider and Sunil Kumar as pillion was hit near the Paliyekkara toll plaza by another scooter allegedly driven rashly (para 3).

Sunil Kumar, aged 43, suffered severe head injuries and was left totally dependent; he was represented by his wife. Sreejith, aged 22, suffered fractures of the wrist and hand with a brachial plexus injury (paras 2.3, 3.1, 3.2).

The MACT, Irinjalakuda, awarded Rs. 19.92 lakh and Rs. 16.03 lakh (para 2.1). The Kerala High Court enhanced these to Rs. 36.23 lakh and Rs. 27.71 lakh, fixing monthly incomes at Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 10,500 but retaining the medical board's disability figures of 75.5% and 62% (paras 2.2, 3.1.1–3.2.2).

Both claimants appealed for further enhancement (para 5.1.2).

Issues (paras 5–6)

1. Whether functional disability, rather than the medical board's percentage, governs loss of earning capacity (paras 5.1–5.1.9, 6.2).
2. Whether a claimant needing a lifelong attendant is 100% functionally disabled (para 5.1.3).
3. How attendant charges should be computed (paras 5.2–5.2.3, 6.3).
4. What amounts are payable for future medical expenses (paras 5.3–5.4, 6.4).
5. Whether compensation for loss of marriage prospects is payable to the younger claimant (para 6.5).

Court's Findings

Income and multiplier (paras 5.1, 6.1): The Court accepted monthly income of Rs. 15,000 for Sunil Kumar, a multiplier of 14 and 25% future prospects. For Sreejith, the multiplier was 18 given his age of 22, following Sarla Verma and Ramachandrappa (paras 5.1, 6.1).

Functional disability – Sunil Kumar (paras 5.1.2–5.1.9): The certified 75.5% did not reflect reality. Sunil Kumar cannot work and needs care for life. Applying Shankar Dutt and Jithendran, the Court fixed functional disability at 100%. Loss of earning capacity came to Rs. 31.50 lakh (paras 5.1.3–5.1.9).

Attendant charges by multiplier (paras 5.2–5.2.3): The High Court awarded only Rs. 1 lakh. Following Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Gobald Motor Service, the Court applied the multiplier and awarded Rs. 25.20 lakh (paras 5.2–5.2.3).

Future medical expenses – Sunil Kumar (paras 5.3–5.4): The Rs. 10 lakh awarded by the High Court was left undisturbed (paras 5.3–5.4).

Functional disability – Sreejith (paras 6.2–6.2.1): Hand and wrist fractures with a brachial plexus injury impaired his ability to earn in the open market. Relying on Priyanka Das, the Court set functional disability at 80% against 62% certified. Loss of earning capacity: Rs. 25.40 lakh (paras 6.2–6.2.1).

Other heads – Sreejith (paras 6.3–6.5): Attendant charges of Rs. 22.68 lakh were awarded by multiplier, following Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath. Future medical expenses of Rs. 8 lakh and Rs. 5 lakh for loss of marriage prospects (following Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar) were also granted (paras 6.3–6.5).

Final Outcome / Directions (paras 7–10)

• Both appeals allowed.
• Sunil Kumar: total compensation Rs. 77,84,394; enhanced amount of Rs. 41,61,750 to carry 6.5% interest from the date of claim petition.
• Sreejith K.S.: total compensation Rs. 69,60,880; enhanced amount of Rs. 41,90,216 to carry 6.5% interest from the date of claim petition.
• Insurer to deposit within six weeks; Tribunal to pay directly into the claimants' bank accounts.

Legal Principle

In compensation for permanent disability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the decisive measure is functional disability – the actual effect of the injury on the claimant's capacity to earn in the open market – which may exceed the medically certified percentage. A claimant whose injuries require lifelong attendant care is to be treated as 100% functionally disabled. Attendant charges for near-lifelong disability must be capitalised by applying the multiplier, and courts must take a realistic approach that also covers future medical expenses and, for young claimants, loss of marriage prospects.

Precedents Relied Upon

• Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236 – Relied upon – notional income. Discussed at paras 3.1, 6.1.
• Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 – Relied upon – age-based multiplier. Discussed at paras 5.1, 6.1.
• Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1193 – Relied upon – functional disability may exceed medical disability. Discussed at paras 5.1, 6.2.
• Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 620 – Relied upon – realistic approach; 100% functional disability in severe cognitive impairment. Discussed at paras 5.1, 6.2.
• Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Priyanka Das, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1760 – Relied upon – open-market earning capacity; future medical expenses. Discussed at paras 5.1, 5.3, 6.4.
• Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 – Relied upon – attendant charges by multiplier. Discussed at paras 5.2, 6.3.
• Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1 – Relied upon – rationale of the multiplier system. Discussed at para 5.2.
• Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath, 2026 INSC 454 – Relied upon – attendant charges by multiplier. Discussed at para 6.3.
• Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 – Relied upon – heads of injury compensation including loss of marriage prospects. Discussed at para 6.5.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Para-wise summary. For the exact words, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Para 5.1.3: A claimant who requires an attendant for life is 100% functionally disabled, though certified at 75.5%.

Paras 5.1.4–5.1.8: Medical and functional disability differ; courts must adopt a realistic approach to loss of earning capacity.

Paras 5.2–5.2.3: Attendant charges for lifelong disability are to be computed by the multiplier; Rs. 25.20 lakh awarded instead of Rs. 1 lakh.

Paras 6.2–6.2.1: Hand and nerve injuries affecting open-market employability justify 80% functional disability.

Paras 7–10: Totals of Rs. 77,84,394 and Rs. 69,60,880 with 6.5% interest on enhanced amounts; deposit in six weeks.

What the Ruling Means: Practical Impact

• For accident victims: Lead evidence on actual work capacity and care needs; the medical certificate is not the last word (paras 5.1.3, 6.2.1).
• For insurers: Expect higher awards where injuries cause dependence; attendant charges will be multiplied, not lump-sum (paras 5.2, 6.3).
• For MACT and High Courts: Assess functional disability separately and give reasons (paras 5.1.4–5.1.8).
• For advocates: Claim every head – future medical expenses, attendant charges and loss of marriage prospects – with supporting evidence (paras 5.3, 6.3–6.5).
• For young claimants: Loss of marriage prospects is a recognised head of damages (para 6.5).

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What did the Supreme Court hold in Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio (2026 INSC 1145)?

It enhanced compensation to two injured scooter riders, holding that functional disability governs loss of earning capacity and attendant charges must be computed by multiplier (paras 5.1–6.5).

2. What is functional disability in motor accident claims?

It is the actual effect of the injury on the claimant's ability to earn. It can be higher than the medical board's certified percentage (paras 5.1.4–5.1.8).

3. When is a claimant treated as 100% disabled?

When the injuries, such as severe head injury, require an attendant for life. The pillion rider was treated as 100% disabled though certified at 75.5% (para 5.1.3).

4. How are attendant charges calculated in MACT cases?

For near-lifelong disability, the monthly attendant cost is multiplied using the multiplier applicable to the claimant's age, following Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (paras 5.2–5.2.3).

5. How much compensation was finally awarded?

Rs. 77,84,394 to Sunil Kumar and Rs. 69,60,880 to Sreejith K.S., with 6.5% interest on the enhanced amounts (paras 7–10).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 1145, Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio, functional disability in motor accident claims, loss of earning capacity, attendant charges multiplier, MACT compensation, Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Jithendran, Sarla Verma, loss of marriage prospects, future medical expenses, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Justice N.V. Anjaria

Judgment Copy

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 1145 – Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance (C.A. No. 13542 of 2026) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India.

Read more: Supreme Court · Civil Law · Motor Accident Claims