Motor Vehicle Fatalities Should Not Be Reimbursed In Stages; It Must Be Completed In One Go

CASE BACKGROUND

• Mukesh Kumar was 19 years old when he was involved in an accident on August 25, 2017 that left him permanently disabled in his right lower leg. That limb's amputation had to be done below the knee.
• According to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), a value of Rs.2 lakhs was calculated for loss of amenities, life, and disfigurement, which included the costs of his prosthetic leg.
• During the plaintiff's appeal hearing, the High Court ordered that he be provided with a high-quality prosthesis with a lifetime guarantee. In addition, it was recommended that in the event of a repair or replacement, the insurance company undertakes it and that they contact the victim at least twice a year about the health of the prosthesis using the email address and telephone number provided.

CASE PROCEDINGS

• The insurance company filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, saying that these instructions constitute of continuing prosthesis care which they will not be responsible for.
• Taking into account Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh et al. and Sapna V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., it has been claimed that there is no provision requiring the approval of a fresh award once the final award has been granted in establishing the amount of compensation under this Act.
• It stated that future contingencies have to be considered at the time.

CASE RELEVANCE

• The Supreme Court declared that once deciding compensation under the automobile Act, a court cannot order the insurer to continue maintaining a prosthetic limb.
• The compensation can't be done through an on-going mandamus, within the informal sense, and should be done all at once, as stated by the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy.
• While a valuation of the amount for compensation was to be made, the bench observed that the same shall be substituted by the assessment of the amount required for maintenance/replacement of the prosthetic limb.
• The claimant was ordered to produce an affidavit detailing the cost of the prosthetic limb he purchased, as well as supporting paperwork from the company from which he got the prosthetic limb, to demonstrate what kind of maintenance/replacement will be required.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS CASE?