The Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance v. Priyanka Das upheld the multiplier of 16 for a 33-year-old deceased bachelor's parents, affirming settled law that the multiplier depends on the deceased's age, not the dependents' ages. In a companion appeal, the Court enhanced a severely injured claimant's functional disability from 80% to 100% based on a Court-directed Medical Board report certifying 100% permanent physical impairment, awarding total compensation of Rs. 3,77,84,297/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.
Background & Facts
The Accident and FIR
On 10.04.2011 at approximately 05:30 PM, a motorcycle driven by Sushant Prabhakaran (aged 33) with Priyanka Das as pillion rider was hit by a heavy goods vehicle bearing registration HR-55-2812 near Brijghat Bridge. The truck ran over Sushant Prabhakaran, causing his instantaneous death. Priyanka Das sustained grievous multiple injuries including pelvic fracture, degloving injury to the perineal region, third-degree friction burns to bilateral gluteal region, traumatic bilateral occipital gliosis resulting in 100% visual disability, and a permanent colostomy stoma. FIR No. 198 dated 10.04.2011 was registered at Police Station Gadmukteshwar on the complaint of passerby Radhe Shyam Kaushik. The truck was insured by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.
The Death Claim Proceedings
MACT Petition No. 9 of 2014 was filed by Priyanka Das (injured pillion rider) claiming compensation of Rs. 5 crores with 18% interest. The parents of the deceased, Sahadeov Prasad (father) and Sandhya Prasad (mother), were arrayed as Proforma Respondents 4 and 5. The deceased was employed as Manager, Contact Centre at Ericsson India Private Limited, DLF Cyber City, Gurugram, with a gross salary of Rs. 10,65,600/- per annum (net Rs. 8,94,100/-). The Tribunal, in its award dated 03.04.2017, awarded total compensation of Rs. 82,56,152/- apportioned as: Priyanka Das Rs. 5,00,000/-, Sahadeov Prasad Rs. 50,000/-, Sandhya Prasad Rs. 77,06,152/-. The Tribunal rejected Priyanka Das's claim of being the legally wedded wife, finding no documentary evidence of marriage and noting she had listed the deceased as her fiancé in employment records. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 16 based on the deceased's age (33 years) per the Sarla Verma matrix.
The Injury Claim Proceedings
Priyanka Das filed MACT Petition No. 94 of 2014 claiming Rs. 12 crores with 15% interest. At the time of the accident, she was 35 years old and working as Deputy Group Manager with IBM Daksh (Concentrix Daksh Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Cyber City, Gurgaon, with CTC increasing from Rs. 16 lakhs to Rs. 19 lakhs per annum post-accident. She underwent multiple surgeries: pelvic reconstruction at Fortis Hospital (12.04.2011 to 11.06.2011), rectal/colostomy surgeries at Kailash Hospital (11.06.2011 to 26.08.2011). Dr. Radhika Tandon (AIIMS) certified 100% visual disability on 30.01.2014. Dr. Peush Sahni (AIIMS) confirmed permanent stoma requirement on 08.01.2015. The Tribunal assessed functional disability at 60% (noting continued employment with assistive software) and awarded Rs. 1,35,53,298/-. The High Court enhanced functional disability to 80%, awarded 50% future prospects, and increased total compensation to Rs. 2,94,82,617/-.
Procedural History
- 10.04.2011: Accident and FIR registration
- 30.01.2014: Visual disability certification by Dr. Radhika Tandon (AIIMS)
- 08.01.2015: Permanent stoma certification by Dr. Peush Sahni (AIIMS)
- 03.04.2017: MACT awards in both petitions
- 2017: FAO Nos. 3607, 5444 (death claim) and FAO Nos. 3608, 5436 (injury claim) filed before Punjab & Haryana High Court
- 24.01.2019: High Court judgment modifying apportionment in death claim (Priyanka Das increased to Rs. 7,50,000/-) and enhancing injury compensation to Rs. 2,94,82,617/-
- 2026: Civil Appeals 12085-12086 (death claim) and 12087-12089 (injury claim) filed before Supreme Court
- 17.10.2025: Supreme Court directs Medical Board re-examination at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital
- 28.02.2026: Medical Board report certifying 100% Permanent Physical Impairment (PPI) of whole body
- 03.09.2026: Supreme Court judgment
Relief Sought
In the death claim appeals: Insurer challenged quantum and multiplier; Priyanka Das challenged denial of legally wedded wife status and apportionment. In the injury claim appeals: Insurer challenged functional disability assessment, future prospects, attendant charges (Rs. 19,20,000/-), and future medical expenses (Rs. 10,00,000/-) arguing coverage under employer's group insurance. Claimant sought enhancement to 100% functional disability (Rs. 2,42,08,416/- loss of future income), higher attendant charges (Rs. 42,24,000/- based on vouchers Exhibits P-349 to P-406), and increased special diet and future medical expenses.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the multiplier for computing compensation for a deceased bachelor's parents should be based on the deceased's age or the parents' ages; (2) Whether functional disability for a claimant with 100% permanent physical impairment (cortical blindness, permanent colostomy) should be assessed at 100% despite continued employment in a highly accommodated role; (3) Whether a Court-directed Medical Board report binds the insurer on disability assessment; (4) The appropriate quantification of heads including attendant charges, future medical expenses, and loss of marriage prospects.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant (Insurer)
The Insurer contended that the multiplier must correspond to the age of the dependents (parents), not the deceased, arguing that Sarla Verma and subsequent precedents were distinguishable. It submitted that Priyanka Das had no functional disability or loss of earning capacity since her CTC increased from Rs. 16 lakhs to Rs. 19 lakhs and she continued as Deputy Group Manager. The High Court erred in applying Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar to award 50% future prospects. The award of Rs. 19,20,000/- for attendant charges on a multiplier basis lacked proof of actual payments. The Rs. 10,00,000/- future medical expenses award was unjustified as treatment was covered under IBM's group insurance policy.
For the Respondent (Claimant)
Priyanka Das argued that her functional disability is 100% due to complete blindness and permanent stoma. Loss of future income should be calculated at 100% functional disability (Rs. 2,42,08,416/-). The High Court's awards for special diet and future medical expenses were inadequate. She proved actual attendant charges of Rs. 10,000-12,000/- per month for a maid and driver via vouchers (Exhibits P-349 to P-406), warranting Rs. 42,24,000/-. The Medical Board report of 28.02.2026 certifying 100% PPI entitled her to enhanced compensation, and the Insurer was estopped from disputing it having accepted the Medical Board evaluation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court reaffirmed the binding precedent chain: Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 standardised the multiplier matrix; Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Five-Judge Bench) validated it; Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma (2015) 6 SCC 347 (Three-Judge Bench) held the multiplier must depend on the deceased's age for bachelors; Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh (2018) 3 SCC 18 affirmed this is no longer res integra. The deceased being 33 years old, the age bracket 31-35 corresponds to multiplier 16. The Insurer's challenge to the multiplier was rejected.
On the injury claim, the Court held the Medical Board report (28.02.2026) is the guiding factor. The Board, chaired by Dr. Vandana Chakravarty with representatives from Neurology, Neurosurgery, Ophthalmology, General Surgery, CIO, and PMR, concluded 100% PPI of the whole body due to post-traumatic head injury with cortical blindness, pelvic fracture, and permanent colostomy. The Court stated: "The Medical Board's opinion will now be the guiding factor in determining the compensation for injuries suffered by the Claimants in the accident dated 10.04.2011." Having invited the Medical Board's opinion, the Insurer could not argue for a lesser percentage.
The Court distinguished functional disability from physical impairment: functional disability assesses earning capacity in the open competitive market, not retention in a specific accommodated role. The Career Growth Letter dated 06.02.2018 from her employer confirmed she lost normal career progression (General Manager, Director, Vice President) and performs duties only through specially created software, flexible hours, and extreme accommodations as corporate compassion. Thus, capacity to independently secure, sustain, or advance employment in the open labour market is entirely extinguished, warranting 100% functional disability.
The Court exercised discretion to award Rs. 20,00,000/- for loss of marriage prospects (not as precedent). Attendant charges were recalculated for three attendants providing 24x7 care at Rs. 28,80,000/-. Future medical expenses set at Rs. 15,00,000/-. Pain and suffering at Rs. 15,00,000/-. Loss of income during 19 months treatment at Rs. 15,97,083/-. Medical bills reimbursement Rs. 35,48,798/-. Special diet Rs. 2,00,000/-. Loss of amenities Rs. 2,00,000/-. Transportation Rs. 1,50,000/-.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeals 12085-12086 (death claim) and 12087-12088 (Insurer's injury claim appeals). Civil Appeal 12089 (Claimant's injury appeal) was allowed in part. For the death claim: multiplier 16 upheld; compensation Rs. 82,56,152/- with apportionment Rs. 7,50,000/- to Priyanka Das, Rs. 50,000/- to father, Rs. 77,06,152/- to mother. For the injury claim: functional disability enhanced to 100%; total compensation Rs. 3,77,84,297/- (Three Crores Seventy-Seven Lakhs Eighty-Four Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Seven) comprising: loss of future earning capacity Rs. 2,42,08,416/- (100% disability, 50% future prospects, multiplier 16), medical bills Rs. 35,48,798/-, attendant charges Rs. 28,80,000/- (three attendants), loss of income during treatment Rs. 15,97,083/-, future medical expenses Rs. 15,00,000/-, pain and suffering Rs. 15,00,000/-, loss of marriage prospects Rs. 20,00,000/-, special diet Rs. 2,00,000/-, loss of amenities Rs. 2,00,000/-, transportation Rs. 1,50,000/-. Interest at 7.5% per annum from date of claim petition until realisation. No order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Multiplier for Bachelors Settled on Deceased's Age
The Sarla Verma multiplier matrix, validated by a Five-Judge Bench in Pranay Sethi and applied to bachelors by a Three-Judge Bench in Munna Lal Jain (affirmed in Sube Singh), is now binding precedent. For deceased bachelors, the multiplier is determined exclusively by the deceased's age at the time of accident, not the dependents' ages. Practitioners must not argue for parent-age-based multipliers; the issue is res integra no longer.
Medical Board Report Binds Insurer on Disability Assessment
When the Court directs a Medical Board evaluation and the insurer does not object to its constitution, the insurer is bound by its findings. The Court held: "once the Medical Board's report is against the Insurer's argument, it cannot be heard to argue that the compensation is payable at a lesser percentage than assessed by the duly constituted Medical Board." This estoppel principle prevents insurers from cherry-picking medical evidence.
Functional Disability Assessed on Open Market Employability
Functional disability is not synonymous with medical/physical impairment percentage. It evaluates the victim's capacity to independently secure, sustain, or advance employment in the open, competitive labour market. Continued employment in a highly accommodated role (special software, flexible hours, corporate compassion) with lost career progression (confirmed by employer's career growth letter) supports 100% functional disability despite salary increments. Lawyers must lead evidence on career trajectory and workplace accommodations, not merely current salary.
Discretionary Heads Require Principled Quantification
Loss of marriage prospects, while discretionary, can be substantial (Rs. 20 lakhs awarded here for a well-educated 35-year-old woman with 100% disability). Attendant charges require proof of actual need; the Court recalculated for three attendants providing 24x7 care. Future medical expenses must account for lifelong needs (permanent stoma, blindness care) even if employer insurance currently covers treatment. Practitioners should plead and prove each head with specific evidence.
