Back
Supreme Court: Priyanka Das' at 100% Despite Job Retention, Awards Rs 3.77 Crore
Key Legal Principle: The assessment of in motor accident compensation cases must focus on a victim's ability to earn in the open, competitive labour market, rather than on the fact that the person continues to retain a job in a highly accommodated workplace.
The delivered a significant ruling on , in a set of appeals arising from a tragic 2011 road accident that left Priyanka Das completely blind and with permanent physical impairments. A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria enhanced her compensation to Rs 3.77 crore, firmly rejecting the insurer's argument that her continued employment negated a high degree of .
A Life Altered in Seconds
On , Priyanka Das was riding pillion on a motorcycle driven by Sushant Prabhakaran near Brijghat Bridge. A heavy goods vehicle struck them, killing Prabhakaran instantly and leaving Das with catastrophic injuries. She suffered a pelvic fracture, severe degloving injuries, and, most critically, traumatic bilateral cortical blindness. Despite numerous surgeries, her large intestine could not be restored, necessitating a permanent colostomy stoma for life.
At the time, Das was a 35-year-old Deputy Group Manager at in Gurgaon, earning a salary of Rs 84,057 per month. She filed a claim petition before the , seeking Rs 12 crore in compensation.
The Battle Over ''
The MACT assessed her at 60% and awarded Rs 1.35 crore. The tribunal noted that while Das had 100% physical disability (blindness), she continued to work with the help of specialized assistive software, and her cost-to-company had actually increased post-accident. On appeal, the increased the to 80% and applied 50% towards , raising the compensation to Rs 2.94 crore.
Both the insurer () and Das appealed to the Supreme Court. The insurer argued that since Das remained employed and even got salary increments, her was minimal. Das countered that her 100% —confirmed by and a court-ordered Medical Board at —meant she had no real earning capacity in the open market.
"Not Retention, but Earning Capacity in the Open Market"
The Supreme Court rejected the insurer's contention. It observed that the calculation of
"depends on assessing the victim's
, rather than on retention in a specific, highly accommodated role."
The court noted that Das could perform her duties only through specially created software, flexible working hours, and
"extreme accommodations provided by her employer as an act of
."
Crucially, the court relied on a from Das's employer confirming that she had lost normal promotional progression after the accident, missing opportunities for advancement to General Manager, Director, or Vice President. Based on the Medical Board's report certifying 100% of the whole body, the court held that her capacity to independently secure, sustain, or advance employment in the open labour market had been entirely extinguished.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"The calculation of depends on assessing the victim's , rather than on retention in a specific, highly accommodated role."
"The compensation calculation shifts from the High Court’s 80% assessment to a because the Claimant’s capacity to independently secure, sustain, or advance employment in the open labour market has been entirely extinguished."
"Having invited the Medical Board’s opinion, the insurer cannot be heard to argue that the compensation is payable at a lesser percentage than assessed by the duly constituted Medical Board."
Enhanced Compensation: A Detailed Breakdown
The court recalculated the compensation on the basis of , applying 50% towards and a of 16. The total was fixed at Rs 2,42,08,416. The court also enhanced , noting the need for round-the-clock care, and awarded Rs 20 lakh for , clarifying that this was a "peculiar" award not to be treated as a precedent.
The final compensation of Rs 3,77,84,297 includes:
- : Rs 2,42,08,416
- Medical bills: Rs 35,48,798
- : Rs 28,80,000 (for three attendants)
- Loss of income during treatment (19 months): Rs 15,97,083
- : Rs 15,00,000
- : Rs 15,00,000
- : Rs 20,00,000
- : Rs 5,50,000
Interest at 7.5% per annum was awarded from the date of the claim petition.
The Connected Death Claim: and Marital Status
In a separate but related appeal concerning the death of Sushant Prabhakaran, the court dismissed the insurer's challenge to the
. It reaffirmed the
that for bachelors, the
must be based on the deceased's age (33 years,
of 16), not the dependents' age. The court also declined to interfere with the
that Priyanka Das was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased, noting that
"
."
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment clarifies that the assessment of in motor accident cases cannot be reduced merely because the claimant continues to work in an accommodated environment. The focus must be on the claimant's earning capacity in the open market. The ruling also emphasizes that insurers cannot challenge medical board reports they themselves sought. The decision is expected to guide tribunals and high courts in evaluating compensation for grievously injured claimants who retain employment through special accommodations.
