100% Functional Disability for Lifelong Care: Supreme Court

Lifelong Care Means 100% Functional Disability: Supreme Court Doubles Compensation for Two Accident Victims

Published: 17 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court raised compensation for two men hurt in a 2016 scooter accident in Kerala, holding that functional disability, not the medical board's percentage, decides loss of earning capacity. The pillion rider, certified at 75.5% but needing lifelong care, was treated as 100% disabled and gets Rs.77.84 lakh; the 22-year-old rider, certified at 62%, was treated as 80% disabled and gets Rs.69.61 lakh (paras 5.1.3, 5.5, 6.2.1, 6.7).

Key holdings

Functional disability, felt in the claimant's daily life and occupation, may exceed the medically certified disability and governs loss of earning capacity (paras 5.1.5, 5.1.8).

A claimant who remains dependent on another and needs an attendant throughout life suffers 100% functional disability (para 5.1.3).

Attendant or bystander charges for long-term care are to be calculated by the multiplier method (paras 5.2.1, 6.3).

A young, able-bodied claimant left disabled is entitled to compensation for loss of marriage prospects (para 6.5).

Future medical expenses may be fixed on the nature of the injuries, taking guidance from Reliance General Insurance v. Priyanka Das (paras 5.3, 6.4).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

On 22.10.2016 a scooter carrying Sunil Kumar as pillion and Sreejith K.S. as rider was hit near the Paliyekkara toll plaza by another scooter said to be driven rashly (para 3). The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, awarded Rs.19.92 lakh and Rs.16.03 lakh (para 2.1). The Kerala High Court raised these to Rs.36.23 lakh and Rs.27.71 lakh, fixing monthly incomes at Rs.15,000 and Rs.10,500 but keeping the medical board's disability figures of 75.5% and 62% (paras 2.2, 3.1.1-3.1.2, 3.2-3.2.2). Sunil Kumar, 43, suffered severe head injuries; Sreejith, 22, fractures of the wrist and hand. Both claimants appealed for more (paras 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 5.1.2).

Court's Findings

The pillion rider's income of Rs.15,000, multiplier of 14 and 25% future prospects stand (paras 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.9). Disability cannot be assessed without the injuries' effect on life and earning capacity; his severe head injuries leave him needing an attendant for life, so his functional disability is 100% though certified at 75.5% (paras 5.1.2, 5.1.3). Shankar Dutt distinguishes medical from functional disability, and Jithendran calls for a realistic approach (paras 5.1.4-5.1.8). Loss of earning capacity is Rs.31.50 lakh (para 5.1.9). Following Kajal, attendant charges use the multiplier: Rs.25.20 lakh instead of Rs.1 lakh (paras 5.2-5.2.3). The 22-year-old rider, with wrist and hand fractures and a brachial plexus injury, lost his earning capacity in the open market; at 80% functional disability he gets Rs.25.40 lakh, with Rs.22.68 lakh attendant charges, Rs.8 lakh future medical expenses and, following Raj Kumar, Rs.5 lakh for loss of marriage prospects (paras 6.2-6.5). The High Court's other awards, including Rs.10 lakh for the pillion rider's future medical expenses, stand (paras 5.3-5.4, 6.6).

Legal Principle

In motor accident claims, loss of earning capacity turns on functional disability, judged by the injuries' effect on the claimant's life and work, not merely on the medical board's percentage; a claimant who needs an attendant throughout life suffers 100% functional disability. Attendant charges are computed by the multiplier method (paras 5.1.3, 5.1.8, 5.2.1).

Precedents Relied Upon

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (2011) 13 SCC 236
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 3.1, 6.1
Basis for the notional monthly income taken for a claimant injured in 2016.
Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.1, 6.1
The multiplier according to the claimant's age (14 at 43 years, 18 at 22 years).
Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1193
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.1, 6.2
Loss of earning capacity is the prime component of permanent disability; functional disability, felt in daily life and occupation, may be greater than the medically certified disability.

View all precedents (9)

Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 15 SCC 620
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.1, 6.2
Courts should take a realistic approach; with severe cognitive dysfunction, physical disability of 69% may be 100% functional disability for loss of earning capacity.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Priyanka Das 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1760
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.1, 5.3, 6.4
Functional disability depends on earning capacity in the open, competitive market; guidance on future medical expenses.
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.2, 6.3
Attendant charges for a claimant disabled almost for life are to be computed by the multiplier method.
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami AIR 1962 SC 1
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.2
The multiplier system factors in inflation, interest on the lump sum, the claimant's longevity and uncertainties of life.
Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath 2026 INSC 454
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6.3
Attendant or bystander charges are to be calculated on the multiplier method.
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6.5
Principles for compensation for loss of marriage prospects.