Today’s briefing is led by a Supreme Court ruling that changes how serious injuries are valued in motor accident claims: if a victim needs a lifelong attendant, the disability can be treated as total, whatever the medical certificate says. The Supreme Court also set aside the blacklisting of a medicine supplier because a mandatory retest was never done. From the Allahabad High Court come three rulings that touch everyday life in Uttar Pradesh: electricity connections in disputed properties, access to the bank savings of coma patients, and a statewide check of basic school teachers’ documents.
Lifelong attendant means 100% functional disability, says Supreme Court
A Bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria decided appeals by two road accident victims from Kerala who said the Kerala High Court had awarded them too little. The lead case, Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., concerned a pillion rider who suffered severe head injuries in a 2016 accident. The Medical Board had put his permanent disability at 75.5%.
What the court held: Medical disability and functional disability are different things. Compensation must reflect how the injury affects the claimant’s actual life and earning ability, not only the percentage recorded by doctors. A person who is dependent on others and needs an attendant for life can be treated as 100% functionally disabled. Sunil Kumar’s total award was raised from about Rs 36.22 lakh to about Rs 77.84 lakh, including higher attendant charges worked out on the multiplier method, with 6.5% interest on the additional amount. In the connected appeal, functional disability was fixed at 80% against a medical assessment of 62%, and the award was raised to about Rs 69.6 lakh. The insurer must deposit the extra amounts before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within six weeks.
What it means for you: Families of seriously injured accident victims should not treat the Medical Board percentage as the last word. Evidence of day-to-day dependence, the need for a full-time carer, loss of the ability to work and ongoing care costs can justify a much higher award. Keep records of nursing and attendant expenses, and ask the treating doctors to describe functional limits clearly. Insurers, in turn, should expect tribunals to look beyond the certificate. Related practice area: Civil Litigation.
No blacklisting of a drug supplier without the promised retest
In M/s JPEE Drugs v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Augustine George Masih and Sandeep Mehta ruled on a supplier of Vitamin C and Ethambutol tablets to government health facilities in Madhya Pradesh. Four batches were declared not of standard quality in 2024, and the state health services corporation ordered recovery, a three-year blacklisting and a two-year debarment. The supplier argued that the tender itself required a second sample to be tested at another laboratory before any blacklisting, and that this never happened. A High Court order for retesting was also not carried out, and by the time the matter reached the Supreme Court the shelf life of all four batches had expired.
What the court held: The authority’s failure to follow its own tender procedure, combined with the permanent loss of any chance to retest, made the orders “unsustainable in law”. The blacklisting and debarment orders were quashed, and the High Court’s judgment and review order were set aside to the extent they had refused relief.
What it means for you: Blacklisting can shut a business out of public procurement for years, so courts insist that the government follows the safeguards written into its own tender. Suppliers facing a quality complaint should read the tender’s testing and appeal clauses at once, demand any retest in writing and move quickly, before samples expire. Public bodies should complete retesting before taking penal action, or risk losing the case on procedure. Related practice area: Corporate & Commercial Law.
Allahabad High Court: a property dispute alone cannot block an electricity connection
A Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary heard Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. The petitioner lives in a property in Raebareli whose ownership is under challenge in a civil suit. His application for a new domestic connection was rejected because he did not produce a registered sale deed, succession certificate or no-objection certificate. He relied on the Electricity Supply Code, 2005, which allows an applicant to give an indemnity form instead.
What the court held: Access to electricity is closely linked to the right to live with dignity under Article 21. The Supply Code accepts proof of occupation, such as a power of attorney, rent receipt, lease deed or indemnity, and does not demand proof of ownership. A pending title dispute is not, by itself, a valid reason to refuse supply; the power utility should look at occupation and technical and statutory compliance, not decide private ownership questions. The Court added that the right is not unconditional and remains subject to lawful charges and safety rules. The rejection was set aside and the Executive Engineer was told to decide the application afresh within 10 days, providing the connection forthwith if it is allowed.
What it means for you: Tenants, family members living in inherited homes, and occupants of property caught up in litigation in Uttar Pradesh can apply for a domestic connection on the basis of lawful occupation, using the indemnity route where ownership papers are not available. A connection does not settle who owns the property, so the civil case continues on its own track. Related practice area: Property, Real Estate & Waqf Law.
Who can use a coma patient’s savings? High Court seeks answers from Centre and RBI
A Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad was hearing a petition by Parveen Jahan concerning the savings account of an account holder who was in a coma and has since died. The Court noted that the dependants of a comatose person can be left with no remedy at all, unable to pay hospital bills or meet household needs, because nobody can lawfully operate the account.
What changed: The Court asked the Union Government and the Reserve Bank of India to file affidavits explaining whether a law or RBI guidelines can create a mechanism to release such savings to dependants, and directed that both be made parties. It suggested that Uttar Pradesh consider guidelines framed earlier by the Kerala High Court and directed the State’s Chief Secretary to propose a concrete solution at the State level, failing which he must appear in person. The matter is listed again on 6 November. In the individual case, the petitioner was left free to seek succession to the amount in the deceased’s account.
What it means for you: At present there is no simple, uniform route for families to access the bank money of a relative who is alive but unable to give instructions, and court guardianship is often the only option. Until guidelines arrive, it is wise for account holders to register nominees, consider joint accounts with an “either or survivor” mandate, and keep a registered power of attorney where appropriate. NRIs with elderly parents holding accounts in India should review these arrangements now. Related practice area: Banking, Finance & Recovery.
Allahabad High Court orders document check of all UP basic school teachers
Justice Vinod Diwakar was hearing Kusumlata v. State of U.P., a writ petition by an assistant teacher seeking approval of her appointment and release of salary. She had been suspended in 2021 over allegations that she used another teacher’s educational documents, and she did not appear for verification before the Special Task Force despite a court direction. The Court was told that the STF’s investigation had found many teachers in the State working on forged papers, in some cases with ten or more people employed on a single set of documents.
What the court held: All teachers in state basic schools (Classes I to VIII) must submit legible copies of their appointment letters and educational certificates, including teacher-training and eligibility test results, to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari within one week of being notified. Each teacher must also file a notarised affidavit disclosing close relatives who have held office at BSA level or above in the Education Department, or an undertaking that there are none. The data will be compiled and sent to the STF for verification under senior supervision, and officers who show laxity may be held personally accountable. The matter is listed again on 4 November.
What it means for you: Teachers in UP basic schools should keep originals and clear copies of every certificate ready and respond to the BSA’s notice on time, since delay may itself attract scrutiny. Genuine appointees whose documents are in order have nothing to fear, but anyone facing suspension or recovery on the basis of the verification has the right to a fair inquiry and can challenge arbitrary action. Related practice area: Labour & Employment Law.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you, your family or your business, you can request a consultation through our online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.