Insurance Company Cannot Be Required to Ensure Future Well-Being Of Motor Accident Victim: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed against an order directing the Insurance Company to provide prosthetic limbs and one motorized wheelchair to the victim while also ensuring their proper functioning twice a year.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While assessing the value of future well being of a 22-yr-old motor accident victim who suffered leg amputation, the Supreme Court has held that the Insurance Company which has indemnified the owner of the motor vehicle as against any loss of estate is not required to ensure the future wellbeing, which in any event can be computed in monetary terms and awarded as ‘just compensation.”
The Insurance Company approached the Apex Court challenging the order of the High Court, which directed the appellant to provide prosthetic limbs and one motorized wheelchair and also ensure their proper functioning at least twice a year.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “We cannot accept the order of the High Court though it would, to some extent, be an ideal one by ensuring the victim’s well being. The Insurance Company which has indemnified the owner of the motor vehicle as against any loss of estate caused by reason of an accident of the vehicle cannot be required to ensure the future wellbeing, which in any event can be computed in monetary terms and awarded as ‘just compensation.”
Factual Background
The respondent had suffered an accident while he was travelling in a Tempo of his employer as a cleaner. The vehicle was driven rashly and negligently, and it hit a stationary tanker. Evidence was produced before the Tribunal regarding the accident and the negligence alleged. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to provide prosthetic limbs and one motorized wheelchair.
There was a further direction to provide the telephone numbers of two responsible officers of the company and pay the cost of travel to the claimant from Patna to Delhi for carrying out the fitment of the prosthetic limbs and procurement of the motorized wheelchair. In addition, the insurance company was directed to ensure the proper functioning of the prosthetic limbs and the wheelchair at least twice a year.
Arguments
It was the case of the Insurance Company that as an insurer, the liability is only to indemnify the loss of estate of the insured, that too, in monetary terms, by pecuniary compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Monitoring the victim of the accident and ensuring his well-being in future will not be the duty of the insurer nor can such an obligation be cast on it.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, said, “We are of the opinion that the appellant is perfectly right in raising such a contention against the impugned order.”
As per the Bench, the High Court could have computed the monetary compensation which would cover the aspect of provision of mobility and prosthetic limb and could have further computed the future well-being of the victim . The Bench noted that the disability was proved by way of examining a Medical Technician and the Doctor who treated the victim. As per the disability certificate, both his lower limbs had 90% impairment, one having been amputated.
The Bench further held that the Insurance Company, which had indemnified the owner of the motor vehicle as against any loss of estate caused because of an accident of the vehicle, cannot be required to ensure the future well-being. The Bench noted that the victim was 22 years old when he was rendered almost immobile by the injuries suffered in an accident. A prosthetic limb would cost approximately Rs.2 lakhs, and it would have to be changed every five years. “Hence, the total amount of Rs.10 lakhs for the prosthetic limbs and another Rs.2 lakhs for the wheelchair would take care of the future wellbeing of the victim”, it said.
Thus, the Bench directed the Insurance Company to pay an additional amount of Rs.12 lakhs to the victim with simple interest @ 6 %, within two months. Disposing of the appeal, the Bench stated, “We are conscious of the fact that the claimant has not approached this Court, and the appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. However, before the High Court, it was the claimant who filed the appeal for compensation; the insurer having accepted the award, but more importantly, we are not increasing the award but only stating the award in monetary terms as is prayed now before this Court by the Insurance Company.”
Cause Title: The Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suraj Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 707)