The Supreme Court has enhanced motor accident compensation payable to a woman who suffered complete blindness, serious pelvic injuries and a permanent colostomy, holding that her continued employment in a specially accommodated position could not be used to deny recognition of her 100% functional disability.
The Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria increased the compensation from ₹2.94 crore awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to ₹3,77,84,297, together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation. The functional disability must be determined by examining the accident victim’s earning capacity in the open and competitive employment market, rather than merely considering whether the person has been retained in a particular job with exceptional assistance from the employer.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Compilation – August 2026
“The record further indicates that she is able to perform her current duties only through specially created software, flexible working hours, and extreme accommodations provided by her employer as an act of corporate compassion,” the Court observed.
The case arose from an accident on April 10, 2011, when Priyanka Das and Sushant Prabhakaran were travelling on a motorcycle towards Gurgaon. A heavy goods vehicle bearing registration number HR-55-2812 struck the motorcycle. Prabhakaran fell under the wheels of the truck and died at the spot, while Das suffered multiple grievous injuries.
The truck was insured by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.
Das was initially admitted to Anand Hospital in Meerut and was subsequently treated at Fortis Hospital, Noida, Kailash Hospital and other medical institutions. She underwent pelvic reconstruction and multiple rectal and colostomy-related surgeries.
Medical evidence established that the accident caused post-traumatic bilateral cortical blindness, leaving her with 100% visual disability. Attempts to restore the continuity of her large intestine were unsuccessful, making a permanent colostomy stoma necessary for the rest of her life.
At the time of the accident, Das was 35 years old and was working as a Deputy Group Manager with IBM Daksh, subsequently known as Concentrix Daksh Services India Private Limited, at Cyber City, Gurgaon. She claimed ₹12 crore as compensation, citing her injuries, loss of quality of life, reduced career prospects and need for round-the-clock assistance.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that Das had established the nature and extent of her injuries through medical records and the testimony of doctors and other witnesses.
Although the medical certificate showed 100% physical disability, the Tribunal noted that she continued to be employed and had received salary increments after the accident. It consequently assessed her functional disability at 60%.
The Tribunal awarded total compensation of ₹1,35,53,298. This included ₹90.78 lakh towards physical disability and loss of future income, ₹35.48 lakh towards medical expenses, ₹4.76 lakh for loss of salary during treatment, and smaller amounts under the heads of pain and suffering, attendant charges, special diet, loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal and partly allowed Das’s appeal. It increased her functional disability from 60% to 80% after considering the combined effect of her complete blindness, pelvic injuries, permanent stoma and restricted career progression.
The High Court also granted a 50% addition towards future prospects and enhanced the overall compensation to ₹2,94,82,617.
It relied upon a letter from the employer showing that Das had secured only four promotions between joining the organisation in 2003 and 2018. The High Court accepted that the accident had adversely affected her normal career progression.
The insurer challenged the enhanced compensation before the Supreme Court. It contended that Das had not suffered a corresponding loss of earning capacity because she remained employed and her cost-to-company had increased from approximately ₹16 lakh to ₹19 lakh annually.
The insurer also questioned the grant of future prospects, attendant charges calculated on the multiplier method and ₹10 lakh awarded for future medical expenses.
Das, on the other hand, sought further enhancement. She submitted that her functional disability should be treated as 100% because she was completely blind, required a permanent stoma and depended on continuous assistance.
During the pendency of the appeals, the Supreme Court directed Das to appear before a multidisciplinary Medical Board at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.
The Board, comprising specialists from neurology, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, general surgery, physical medicine and rehabilitation, examined her in February 2026. It certified that she had suffered 100% permanent physical impairment of the whole body because of the accident.
The Supreme Court rejected the insurer’s contention that compensation should nevertheless be calculated at a lower functional-disability percentage because Das had continued in employment.
The Court reasoned that if the Medical Board had assessed a lower disability, the insurer would have relied on that assessment to seek a reduction in compensation. Having invited a fresh medical assessment, the insurer could not disregard the report merely because it supported the claimant’s case.
The Court held that the ability of an injured claimant to continue in one specially protected or highly accommodated position cannot conclusively establish that her earning capacity remains intact.
It noted that Das could discharge her existing responsibilities only because her employer had provided specially developed software, flexible working hours and extensive workplace support.
Her retention in employment was, therefore, attributable to what the Court described as “corporate compassion” and could not be treated as proof that she could independently obtain, retain or progress in employment in the open market.
The Court also took note of the employer’s career-growth letter, which demonstrated that Das had lost opportunities for normal promotional progression to senior positions such as General Manager, Director or Vice-President.
Considering the Medical Board’s finding, her career stagnation and the extraordinary accommodations required for her continued employment, the Court concluded that her capacity to independently secure, sustain or advance employment in the open labour market had been entirely extinguished.
It accordingly revised the functional-disability assessment from 80% to 100%.
The Supreme Court took Das’s monthly income as ₹84,057 and her annual income as ₹10,08,684. It added 50% towards future prospects, taking the total annual financial loss to ₹15,13,026.
Applying a multiplier of 16, the Court determined the loss of future earning capacity at ₹2,42,08,416.
The Court awarded ₹35,48,798 towards reimbursement of medical bills, ₹28.80 lakh towards the cost of three attendants required for round-the-clock care, ₹15,97,083 towards income lost during 19 months of treatment and ₹15 lakh towards future medical expenses.
It further awarded ₹15 lakh for pain, suffering and mental agony, ₹20 lakh for loss of marriage prospects, ₹2 lakh for special diet, ₹2 lakh for loss of amenities and disfigurement, and ₹1.50 lakh towards transportation expenses.
The total compensation was consequently fixed at ₹3,77,84,297, with interest at 7.5% per annum.
The Court clarified that the amount of ₹20 lakh under the head of loss of marriage prospects was awarded in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and that this exercise should not be treated as a precedent.
The insurer’s appeals were dismissed, while the claimant’s appeal was partly allowed.
In connected appeals arising from the death of Sushant Prabhakaran in the same accident, the Supreme Court upheld the compensation of ₹82,56,152 awarded by the Tribunal.
Prabhakaran was 33 years old and employed as Manager, Contact Centre, with Ericsson India Private Limited. The Tribunal had determined the loss of dependency by taking his annual income, adding future prospects, making a 50% deduction and applying a multiplier of 16.
The insurer argued that because compensation had principally been awarded to the deceased’s parents, the multiplier should be selected according to the parents’ ages and not the deceased’s age.
The Supreme Court rejected this submission. Referring to Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh, the Court reiterated that the applicable multiplier must be determined according to the age of the deceased, including where the deceased was a bachelor and the parents are the dependants.
Since Prabhakaran was 33 years old, the Court held that the Tribunal and the High Court had correctly applied a multiplier of 16.
Priyanka Das had also challenged the apportionment of compensation arising from Prabhakaran’s death. She asserted that she was his legally wedded wife.
The Tribunal had found that no documentary evidence proving the marriage had been produced. Employment records instead described Prabhakaran as her fiancé. The Tribunal also recorded that Das was independently employed and was not financially dependent on him.
The Tribunal originally awarded ₹5 lakh to Das, ₹50,000 to Prabhakaran’s father and ₹77,06,152 to his mother. The High Court increased Das’s share to ₹7.50 lakh but declined to recognise her as the legally wedded wife.
The Supreme Court refused to reappreciate the evidence or disturb the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and the High Court. It held that the burden of proving the claimed marital relationship rested upon Das and found no ground to interfere with the apportionment.
The appeals filed by both the insurer and Das in relation to the death compensation were accordingly dismissed.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
