Date:
3rd August 2021
BENCH:
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Justice Hrishikesh Roy
PARTIES:
Appellant- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd
Respondent- Mukesh Kumar & Ors
SUBJECT
The Supreme Court observed that while determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, a court cannot direct continued maintenance of a prosthetic limb by the insurance company to the injured claimant.
OVERVIEW
- The respondent was 19 years of age when he met with an accident, which resulted in a permanent disability of his lower limb, which was treated as a 100% disability.
- Due to the injury, an amputation had to take place below the knee of that limb. Therefore, an assessment was given by the Motor Accident Claims (MACT) of Rs. 2 lakh for the loss suffered and disfigurement, which would include the expenses towards his prosthetic limb. After that, the claimant filed an appeal before the High Court.
- The learned High Court passed an order to modify the extent to which the appellant shall be compensated. It directed the company to supply a prosthetic limb of good quality, which is suitable and comfortable to him. It would carry a lifetime warranty and hence it should it be replaced/repaired at any stage by the insurance company.
- In addition to that, the insurer (respondent) will enquire from the victim at least twice a year about the working condition of the prosthetic limb through his mobile number, email address, or his counsel’s email address and number.
ISSUES
- Whether directions passed by the court while determining compensation under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in the manner of a direction in perpetuity for continued maintenance of a prosthetic limb for the injured claimant be held as valid?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Apex Court, while setting aside the High Court order, observed that in the process of determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, a court is not empowered to direct continuous maintenance to the insurance company.
- Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the insurance company preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and contended that the directions amounted to continuing maintenance of prosthetic limb, along with continuous monitoring.
- The court relied upon the various verdicts and submitted that during the process of determining the compensation under the Act, no provision mandates passing of another award upon the declaration of the final award.
- Thebench set asidethe directions passed by the High Court and observed that the process of determination of compensation cannot be like a continuing mandamus, instead, the determination ought to be taken in one go.
- Furthermore, it substituted the directions by observing that the amount required for maintenance/replacement should be determined by quantifying the amount of compensation.
- Itdirected the claimant to filean affidavit mentioning the cost of a prosthetic limb and the kind of maintenance/replacement it might require in the future.
CONCLUSION
The Apex Court disposed of the appeal and directed that the affidavits mentioning the cost of a prosthetic limb and the maintenance/ replacement cost are to be filed within four weeks and ordered that the reply to the same is to be filed within two weeks.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
