Supreme Court orders IFFCO Tokio to pay more to two road accident victims

The Supreme Court on 15 October 2026 raised the compensation payable by IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd to two men injured in a 2016 scooter accident in Kerala. The court increased the awards to Rs 77,84,394 and Rs 69,60,880, from Rs 36,22,644 and Rs 27,70,664 fixed by the Kerala High Court. It held that compensation must reflect how far an injury affects a person's daily life and work, not only the disability figure in a medical certificate.

What Happened

The two claimants, a 43-year-old pillion rider and the 22-year-old who was riding the scooter, were hurt when another scooter collided with theirs near the Paliyekkara toll plaza on 22 October 2016. A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded them Rs 19,91,954 and Rs 16,03,400 in 2021, and the High Court raised these amounts in January 2026.

The Supreme Court drew a line between medical disability and functional disability, meaning the real loss a person suffers in daily life and earning. For the older claimant, a Medical Board had certified 75.5% disability. The court held that a person who needs an attendant throughout life suffers 100% functional disability. For the younger claimant, it raised the figure from the certified 62% to 80%.

The court also held that attendant charges must be worked out with the multiplier method, the same formula used for lost income, rather than as a small fixed sum. This gave Rs 25,20,000 and Rs 22,68,000 under that head. It allowed future medical expenses of Rs 10 lakh and Rs 8 lakh, and Rs 5 lakh to the younger claimant for loss of marriage prospects.

What It Means

The additional amounts, Rs 41,61,750 and Rs 41,90,216, carry 6.5% annual interest from the date the claim petitions were filed. The court ordered the insurer to deposit them before the Tribunal within six weeks, and the Tribunal will transfer the money directly to the claimants' bank accounts after checking their identity.

For accident victims and their families, the ruling shows that courts can look beyond the medical certificate and assess how injuries affect a person's ability to live and earn. Where a victim needs lifelong care, the court treated attendant costs as a long-term loss to be calculated like lost income.

Source: Supreme Court judgment