SUNIL KUMAR (TOTALLY DISABLE REP. BY WIFE) v. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2026 INSC 1145 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13542 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026)

SUNIL KUMAR (TOTALLY DISABLE REP. BY WIFE) …APPELLANT

VERSUS

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. …RESPONDENT

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13543 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026)

JUDGMENT

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave already granted on 17.09.2026.

2. What is impugned in the present two appeals is

common judgment and order dated 06.01.2026 passed by

the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam1, by which the High

Court dealt with MACA No. 130 of 2022 and MACA No. 249 Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by SNEHA DAS Date: 2026.10.16 17:58:12 IST Reason: 1 Hereinafter “High Court”

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 1 of 27

of 2022. The appeals before the High Court arose from O.P.

(M.V.) No. 642 of 2017 and O.P. (M.V.) No. 1555 of 2017

respectively, decided by common judgment and award dated

15.02.2021 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at

Irinjalakuda2.

2.1 The Tribunal awarded to the appellant-claimant Sunil

Kumar3, by way of compensation, Rs.19,91,954/- with 8%

per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim

petition till realization who has been represented by his wife

in the present appeal, having become totally disabled on

account of the injuries suffered in the accident. In the

second case, the appellant-claimant Sreejith K.S.4 came to

be awarded Rs.16,03,400/- by the Tribunal with interest as

above.

2.2 The High Court has enhanced the compensation to the

appellant in the first case from Rs.19,91,954/- to

Rs.36,22,644/-, whereas, in the second case, the amount is

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 2 of 27

enhanced from Rs.16,03,400/- to Rs.27,70,664/- with

interest as above.

2.3 Since both the appellants are dissatisfied with the

extent of enhancement granted by the High Court, they have

approached this Court by way of the present appeals.

3. The claim petitions arose out of one single accident,

which took place on 22.10.2016 at about 7:40 in the

morning. The appellant in the first case-Sunil Kumar was a

pillion rider, whereas the appellant in the second case

named Sreejith K.S. was driving the scooter bearing

Registration No. KL-64/C-6493, both going through

Thrissur-Kodara public road. When they reached near

Paliyekkara toll plaza, all of a sudden, another scooter

bearing Registration No. KL-45/M-9130 which was driven

by original respondent no.1 stated to have come in a rash

and negligent manner and collided with the scooter of the

appellants. The appellants were thrown on the ground and

sustained serious injuries. The appellant – claimant in the

first case, who was a pillion rider claimed Rs.50,00,000/-,

whereas the driver of the scooter – the appellant in the

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 3 of 27

second case claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- towards compensation

for the injuries sustained by them.

3.1 Before proceeding to consider the merits of the

case for enhancement, relevant facts pertaining to both may

be noticed. The appellant in the first case was 43 years of

age on the date of the accident. His case was that he was

engaged in the trading of bakery items and had been earning

Rs.30,000/- per month. He relied on Exhibit-A13 certificate

to contend that he had income from agriculture also. The

Tribunal fixed his income to be Rs. 9,000/- per month

taking the view that the Exhibit-A13 certificate showed that

he was a farmer by occupation.

3.1.1 Before the High Court reliance was placed on the

decision in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited5 to

contend that since the accident had taken place in the year

2016, the notional income of the claimant ought to be taken

at least Rs.10,500/- per month. The High Court took into

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 4 of 27

account the Exhibit-A13 certificate, in which claimant was

certified to have completed the training in the Field

Operation and Maintenance of Agricultural Machinery and

Implements, to take a view that on the basis of Exhibit-A13,

it could not be concluded that the claimant’s occupation was

farming only. The income was re-fixed by the High Court at

Rs.15,000/- per month. This appellant was held entitled to

be given 25% increase towards future prospects. The

Multiplier was taken at 14 considering that the age of the

appellant was 43 years, on the date of accident.

3.1.2 As per the disability certificate Exhibit-X1 issued

by the Medical Board, looking at the injuries suffered, the

permanent disability was fixed at 75.5%. The contention on

the part of the appellant that functional disability was

required to be taken at 100% was not accepted by the

Tribunal. The High Court did not touch the said aspect and

maintained the disability at 75.5% as stated by the Medical

Board.

3.1.3 It was further held by the High Court that

amounts of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 5 of 27

awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘bystander’s

expenses’ and ‘extra nourishment’, deserved to be increased

to Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively. Towards ‘pain

and suffering’ and ‘loss of amenities’, the High Court viewed

that in light of the disability certificate and other

consideration, Rs. 2,50,000/- was required to be granted

under each of the aforesaid heads.

3.1.4 The comparative chart showing the compensation

under the different heads as awarded by the Tribunal and

enhanced by the High Court to the appellant in the first

case-Sunil Kumar is as below,

Head for Compensation Amount Amount awarded by awarded by Tribunal High Court (in Rs.) (in Rs.)

Loss of earnings 72,000/- 1,80,000/- (15,000 x 12)

Transportation expenses 10,000/- 10,000/-

Damage to clothing and 2,000/- 2,000/- articles

Extra nourishment 2,000/- 20,000/-

Bystander's expenses 12,000/- 30,000/-

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 6 of 27

Medical expenses, including 4,02,394/- 4,02,394/- future medical expenses

Pain and suffering 1,50,000/- 2,50,000/-

Permanent disability and 11,41,560/- 23,78,250/- loss of earning power (15,000 + 25% x 12 x 14 x 75.5%)

Loss of amenities 1,00,000/- 2,50,000/-

Future bystander's 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- expenses

Total 19,91,954/- 36,22,644/-

3.2 Turning to the relevant facts in respect of the

appellant in second case, the claimant named Sreejith K.S.

was a driver of the ill-fated scooter. He was 22 years of age

at the time of the accident. He claimed similar to the

appellant in the first case, that he was engaged in the

business of bakery items. The Tribunal fixed his notional

income at Rs.8,000/-, against of his assertion of income to

be of Rs.30,000/-. The High Court was of the view that no

evidence was produced to fortify the plea for taking

enhanced figure of income, however, considering the

decision in Ramachandrappa (supra), the High Court re-

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 7 of 27

fixed the amount to Rs.10,500/- per month. The appellant

was held to be entitled for future prospects at 40%, having

regard to his age.

3.2.1 The High Court increased the amount to

Rs.2,50,000/- towards each of the head of ‘pain and

suffering’ and ‘loss of amenities’ from Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs.

1,00,000/- respectively which were granted by the Tribunal.

The total compensation was calculated accordingly. In this

case, Multiplier applied was 18 as the claimant was aged 22

years.

3.2.2 The extent of permanent disability in respect of

the appellant in the second case was certified by the Medical

Board. The Medical Board was of the view that having regard

to the nature of injuries suffered by this appellant-claimant,

disability was required to be assessed at 62%. The High

Court took the view that the percentage of disability for the

appellant in the second case was acceptable as certified by

the Medical Board. It was found that this claimant suffered

injuries in the nature of right volar bartons fracture, right

scaphoid fracture, fractures of left 1st and 2nd metacarpal

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 8 of 27

fracture, left brachial plexuses injury (lower trunk). The said

injuries have potential to affect nerve supplying the arm.

3.2.3 The comparative chart showing compensation

amount under the different heads as awarded by the

Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court to the appellant

in the second case-Sreejith K.S. is as below,

Head of Claim for Amount Amount Compensation awarded by awarded by Tribunal High Court (in Rs.) (in Rs.)

Loss of earnings 64,000/- 84,000/- (10,500 x 8)

Transportation expenses 10,000/- 10,000/-

Damage to clothing and 2,000/- 2,000/- motorcycle

Extra nourishment 2,000/- 2,000/-

Bystander's expenses 9,300/- 9,300/-

Medical expenses 1,94,720/- 1,94,720/-

Pain and suffering 1,50,000/- 2,50,000/-

Permanent disability and loss of 10,71,360/- 19,68,624/- earning power (10,500 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 62%)

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 9 of 27

Loss of amenities 1,00,000/- 2,50,000/-

Total 16,03,380/- 27,70,664/- (rounded off to 16,03,400)

4. Heard learned counsel Ms. Aarthi Rajan for the

appellants and learned counsel Mr. Shubham Janghu for

the respondent in both the appeals, at length.

5. Proceeding to analyse the merits of the case for

enhancement in the compensation put forward in both the

appeals, firstly taking the case of the appellant-Sunil

Kumar, who suffered serious head injuries and other

injuries in the accident. While considering the monthly

income of the appellant in the first case, the High Court,

while referring to Exhibit-A13 certificate, observed that he

had completed training in Field Operation and Maintenance

of Agricultural Machinery and Implements, however from

the certificate, it would not be suggested that the appellant

was engaged in farming activity alone.

5.1. The High Court’s view was correct. The appellant

could reasonably be presumed to be engaged in other

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 10 of 27

earning activities also. Therefore, the High Court was

justified in taking Rs.15,000/- per month to be his monthly

income. Furthermore, the High Court took the loss of

earning, increasing the same from 8 to 12 months. For this

appellant, 40% ‘future prospects’ came to be awarded.

5.1.1 In the case of the appellant, since he was 43 years

of age, the multiplier of 14 applied, which was in accordance

with Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation & Another6. The reasoning, the finding, and

the amount awarded by the High Court on this score need

no interference.

5.1.2 The Medical Board certified the medical disability

of this appellant to the extent of 75.5%. However, the extent

of permanent disability cannot be realistically assessed

without considering the nature of the injuries and the effect

thereof on the life and state of living of the appellant. The

injuries which he suffered, included severe head injuries,

open diffuse axonal injury, midbrain contusion with Weber’s

6 (2009) 6 SCC 121

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 11 of 27

syndrome and left knee penetrating injury. The functional

effect of those injuries has to be estimated. They have grave

consequences on the earning capacity of the appellant. The

appellant would require an attendant and a bystander to

look after him throughout his life. The appellant would be

suffering from psychiatric disability of higher grade.

5.1.3 Therefore, even though the Medical Board

certified the medical disability to be 75.5%, the functional

effect can be said to be debilitating for the appellant to the

extent of 100%. One who remains dependent on another and

requires an attendant throughout his life can be said to be

suffering from 100% functional disability. The appellant

would not be able to do his own work, much less engage in

earning activity for himself and his family, leading to total

loss of working capacity.

5.1.4 In Shankar Dutt vs. United India Insurance Co.

Ltd. and Others7, this Court elaborated the concept of

permanent disability, highlighting the components thereof,

7 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1193

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 12 of 27

the prime of which is loss of earning capacity. The claimant,

who becomes partially or completely disabled and lose

forever the capacity to earn, is a permanently disabled

person, and the amount of compensation on the said count

has to be determined in such context.

5.1.5 The Court drew the distinction between medical

disability and functional disability,

‘A conceptual distinction has to be drawn between the medically certified disability resulting out of physical injury or impairment on one hand, and the long-term repercussions on the injured, on his or her life and activities on the other hand. The functional disability is one which is suffered and felt by the injured in his day-to-day life or in his avocation, occupation, business or profession.’ (Para 5.6.1)

5.1.5 (a) It was further observed,

‘The medical opinion may have suggested that physical impairment on account of the injury is to a particular extent, however its functional effect may be greater. In fact, it could be reasonable to state that the functional incapacity resulting out of a particular bodily injury, which may be impairment or amputation, would be higher and greater than what may be medically perceived.’ (Para 5.6.2)

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 13 of 27

5.1.5 (b) The Court next explained,

‘When it comes to assessing the compensation in the context of the injury suffered, what matters is the extent by which the functions of an injured person suffers, and not what the doctor may have judged in terms of medical standards. The functional aspect of the disability arising out of injury has correlation with the age of the injured, his occupation, engagement in work or avocation, the adversarial effect on the earning capacity of the injured, which would again depend upon the nature of work or earning activity with which and in which the injured is engaged and such other relevant considerations.’ (Para 5.6.3)

5.1.6 In Jithendran vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

and Another8, this Court emphasised for taking realistic

approach while assessing the permanent disability,

‘The courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant. In cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant is suffering severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% insofar as the claimant's loss of earning capacity is concerned.’ (Para 14)

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 14 of 27

5.1.7 In Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.

Priyanka Das and Others9, the Court again highlighted the

concept of functional disability as under,

‘The calculation of functional disability depends on assessing the victim's earning capacity in the open, competitive market, rather than on retention in a specific, highly accommodated role. Evidence before the High Court, specifically the Career Growth Letter dated 06.02.2018 from her employer, confirmed that the Claimant lost out on her normal career growth and promotional progression, including advancement to the positions…’ (Para 19)

5.1.8 Therefore, because of the injuries, the appellant

became permanently disabled and effectively stood deprived

of his earning capacity in open competitive market. The

distinction between medical disability and functional

disability, as highlighted from the decision in Shankar Dutt

(supra), applies for arriving at the functional disability in the

present case also. In Jithendran (supra), this Court

underlined the need to adopt a realistic approach for

arriving at the figure of permanent disability, which

principle would also equally apply.

9 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1760

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 15 of 27

5.1.9 Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered

by the appellant in the first case and the resultant effect on

his body and activity, it would be reasonable to take the

permanent functional disability to the extent of 100%, and

the amount towards loss of earning capacity would be

calculated thus- Rs. 15,000/- monthly income multiplied by

12 which brings total annual income of Rs. 1,80,000/-.

Since the permanent disability is to the extent of 100%,

which will come to Rs. 1,80,000/-, further multiplied by

25% towards ‘future prospects, which comes to Rs. 45,000/-

, therefore, Rs. 1,80,000/- + 45,000/-, total of which Rs.

2,25,000/-, multiplied by multiplier figure of 14, brings total

amount of Rs. 31,50,000/- to be awarded towards ‘loss of

earning capacity’ on the basis of 25% future prospects and

100% disability.

5.2 There is another head under which the amount of

compensation awarded by the High Court is inadequate, and

not conforming to the principles laid down by this Court in

that regard, which is under the head of ‘attendant charges’

or ‘bystander charges’ to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. The

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 16 of 27

principles were stated in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and

Others10, to arrive at a just and reasonable amount towards

attendant charges in case of serious injuries where the

person has become disabled almost for lifetime.

5.2.1 In Kajal (supra), the appellant-Kajal was a young

school going girl who suffered serious accidental injuries

resulting in damage to the brain. As far as ‘attendant

charges’ are concerned, the High Court awarded Rs.2,500/-

per month for 44 years, which method was not approved by

this Court. It was observed that the multiplier system was

used to balance out the various factors and the same should

be followed not only for determining the compensation on

account of loss of income or dependency but also for

determining the attendant charges.

5.2.2 The method or system based on multiplier

application was recognized by this Court in Gobald Motor

Service Ltd. vs. R.M.K. Veluswami11. It was stated that the

multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of

10 (2020) 4 SCC 413 11 AIR 1962 SC 1

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 17 of 27

interest payable on the lumpsum amount awarded, the

longevity of the claimant and also the aspects such as

uncertainties of life.

5.2.3 By applying the multiplier method to adequately

compensate the appellant under the head of attendant

charges, the following amount would be awardable: monthly

income Rs.15,000/- multiplied by 12, to arrive at annual

income to Rs.1,80,000/-, further multiplied by multiplier

figure 14, which comes to Rs.25,20,000/-. The aforesaid

amount as arrived at above would be just compensation

towards the ‘attendant charges’ to the appellant, who would

need such assistance almost throughout his life.

5.3 In respect of ‘future medical expenses’, the High Court

has granted Rs.10,00,000/- by placing reliance on the

decision in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).

Therefore, the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is properly

awarded to be just and proper. It is maintained. The High

Court has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards ‘transportation

expenses’, Rs.2,000/- towards ‘clothes and articles’,

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 18 of 27

Rs.20,000/- towards ‘extra nourishment’, which are just

and proper.

5.4 The amount awarded under the head of ‘medical

expenses including future medical expenses’ to the tune of

Rs.4,02,394/-, is also proper. Under the ‘loss of amenities’,

Rs.2,50,000/- and the equivalent amount for ‘pain and

suffering’ are also just and proper. They do not require any

interference or increase.

5.5 As a result of the foregoing discussion, the total

compensation that would be payable to the appellant in the

first case, named Sunil Kumar, would be as under,

Heads Amounts

Loss of earnings 15,000 × 12 = 1,80,000/-

Transportation expenses 10,000/-

Damage to clothing and 2,000/- motorcycle

Extra nourishment 20,000/-

Bystander's expenses 15,000 × 12 × 14 = 25,20,000/-

Medical expenses 4,02,394/-

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 19 of 27

Future medical expenses 10,00,000/-

Pain and suffering 2,50,000/-

Permanent disability and loss 31,50,000/- of earning power

[15,000 x 12 = 1,80,000/- 1,80,000 x 100% = 1,80,000/- 1,80,000 x 25% = 45,000/- 45,000+1,80,000= 2,25,000/- 2,25,000 x 14 = 31,50,000/-]

Loss of amenities 2,50,000/-

Total 77,84,394/-

6. As far as the appellant in the second case is

concerned, he was the driver of the ill-fated scooter, aged 22

years on the date of the accident. As regards income, the

claim of this appellant was on the same lines as of the

appellant in the first case, claiming that he had been

engaged in bakery items and earned Rs.30,000/- per month.

Since there was no evidence produced in fortification, the

High Court was justified in rejecting the claim about the

income by this appellant to such extent.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 20 of 27

6.1 The High Court, however on the basis of the decision

in Ramachandrappa (supra), took his notional monthly

income to be Rs.10,500/- to commit no error. This appellant

was granted ‘loss of future prospects’ to the extent of 40%,

having regard to his age. The multiplier applied in his case

was 18, which was in accordance with the decision in Sarla

Verma (supra).

6.2 In respect of this appellant, the Medical Board certified

the medical disability to the extent of 62%. The injuries

suffered by the appellant were serious. They included right

volar bartons fracture, right scaphoid fracture, fractures of

left 1st and 2nd metacarpal fracture and left brachial plexuses

injury (lower trunk). The said injuries have potential to affect

nerve supplying arm. Therefore, because of the injuries, the

appellant became permanently disabled and effectively lost

his earning capacity in the open competitive market.

6.2.1 The distinction between medical disability and

functional disability, as highlighted from the decision in

Shankar Dutt (supra), in Jithendran (supra) and in

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 21 of 27

Reliance General Insurance Ltd. (supra), applies for

arriving at the functional disability in the present case also.

Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant

in the second case and the resultant effect on his body and

life activity, it would be reasonable to take the permanent

functional disability to the extent of 80%. The amount

would be calculated as under - Rs. 10,500/- notional income

multiplied by 12, which comes to Rs. 1,26,000/- as annual

income. Since the permanent disability is assessed at 80%,

Rs.1,26,000/- multiplied by 80% which comes to

Rs.1,00,800/- and that figure multiplied by 40%, which is

‘loss of future prospects’ Rs. 40,320/- + 1,00,800/- and total

amount is to be multiplied by the figure of 18, which comes

to total Rs.25,40,160/- to be awarded towards ‘permanent

disability and loss of earning power’.

6.3 This appellant was granted Rs.9,300/- towards

‘bystander charges’. The principles discussed in Kajal

(supra) and also in Hansraj vs. Mukesh Nath and Others12,

would also suggest that the attendant charges or bystander

12 2026 INSC 454

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 22 of 27

charges have to be calculated on the basis of the multiplier

method. The amount would be calculated as notional

income per month Rs. 10,500/- multiplied by 12 and further

multiplied by the figure of multiplier 18, which come to

6.4 Considering the nature of injuries in this case,

the future medical expenses, taking suggestions from

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (supra),

could be reasonably granted to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/-.

The appellant in the second case also would be entitled to

get enhancement under the heads of ‘pain and suffering’ and

‘loss of amenities’ to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- under each

head, as awarded in the case of the first appellant.

6.5 Further, the appellant in the second case was an

energetic, able-bodied youngster at the time of the incident.

Therefore, the loss towards marriage prospects would have

to be recognized while determining the amount of

compensation for this appellant - claimant. Under the head

of loss of marriage prospects, the principles laid down by

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 23 of 27

this Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar13, would be relied

upon, and the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- would be a proper

amount to be awarded for ‘loss of future prospects of

marriage’.

6.6 The amounts awarded under other heads by the High

Court do not warrant any interference.

6.7 As a result of the foregoing discussion, the total

compensation that would be payable to the appellant in the

second case, named Sreejith K.S., would be as under,

Heads Amounts

Loss of earnings 10,500 x 12 =1,26,000/-

Transportation expenses 10,000/-

Damage to clothing and 2,000/- motorcycle

Extra nourishment 20,000/-

Bystander's expenses 10,500 x 12 x 18 = 22,68,000/-

Medical expenses 1,94,720/-

13 (2011) 1 SCC 343

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 24 of 27

Future medical expenses 8,00,000/-

Pain and suffering 2,50,000/-

Permanent disability and loss 25,40,160/- of earning power

[10,500 x 12 = 1,26,000 1,26,000 x 80%= 1,00,800 1,00,800 x 40% = 40,320 40,320+1,00,800=1,41,120/- 1,41,120 x 18 = 25,40,160/-]

Loss of amenities 2,50,000/-

Loss of marriage prospects 5,00,000/-

Total 69,60,880/-

7. Accordingly, the appellant in the first case is held

entitled to a total amount of Rs.77,84,394/- with interest,

the additional compensation payable to him would be

Rs.41,61,750/-. However, this Court deems it fit to grant

interest at 6.5% per annum from the date of filing claim

petition till realisation on the additional amount instead of

8% as awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court on the

originally granted amount.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 25 of 27

7.1. The appellant in the second case would be entitled to

total compensation of Rs. 69,60,880/- with interest, and the

differential additional amount payable would come to

Rs.41,90,216/- to be paid with interest at 6.5% from the

date of application till actual payment.

7.2 Both the appellants will get the additional amount with

6.5% interest per annum to run from the date of filing of the

claim petition till realization.

8. The respondent- insurance company shall deposit, in

both the cases, the additional amount of compensation

awarded with interest calculated as above, within 6 weeks

from the date of this judgment, before the Tribunal

concerned.

9. The Tribunal shall disburse the amount in favour of

the respective appellants, after seeking proof of

identification and undertaking necessary procedure in that

regard, by directly transferring the amount into the Bank

Accounts of the appellants-claimants concerned.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 26 of 27

10. Both the appeals accordingly succeed and are allowed

in the above terms and to the aforesaid extent.

Any interlocutory applications, if pending, shall cease

to survive in view of the disposal of the main appeals.

.………………………...J. [S.V.N. BHATTI]

………………………….J. [N.V. ANJARIA] NEW DELHI; October 15, 2026

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21292 of 2026 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 21441 of 2026 Page 27 of 27