The Supreme Court has held that precedents in motor accident compensation cases have only persuasive value and that cases for compensation have to be dealt individually, on the facts and circumstances of each case.

While directing an Insurance Company to pay Rs 50 lakh towards future attendant charges for a man who was left in a pitiable condition after a motor accident, the Supreme Court further held that the purpose of insurance is to ensure that the person insured is covered in real terms for an eventuality which may be unfortunate, but is an incidence of life which cannot be shunned.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against an impugned order of the Delhi High Court enhancing the compensation amount granted by the MACT, Rohini, in favour of the Respondent. The main area of challenge pertained to the direction that the insurance company should deposit an amount of Rs 10 lakh with the claimant's bank for compensation payable towards 'future attendant charges'.

The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan held, "The Court would not dwell much on the same for the simple reason that a case for compensation has to be dealt totally individually on the facts and circumstances of that particular case. Thus, all these decisions, at best, are persuasive in nature and in the present case, we have arrived at a figure being well conscious of the ground realities and the need to sufficiently compensate the respondent No.1, so as to ensure that the remainder of his life is spent with some dignity".

The Court further held, “The purpose for insurance is to ensure that the person insured is covered in real terms for an eventuality which may be unfortunate, but is an incidence of life and cannot be shred away from. Thus, the basic issue of the appellant requiring at least two attendants per day till the time he survives, as also the rates at which such help can be engaged, as also the cost of his expenditure, and medical expenses, persuade us to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs).”

Senior Advocate Joy Basu represented the Appellant, while AOR Gopal Jha represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the Insurance Company that the impugned order was too vague to be implemented and was based on probabilities which ought not to have been done, as the High Court, in its discretion, ought to have quantified the compensation amount

The respondent submitted that he is in a pitiable condition and may not be able to do even basic daily functions. It was contended that the requirement of an attendant would be 24/7, and going by today's rates, even on a conservative assessment, no attendant would be available for less than Rs 10,000 per month.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the respondent was in a condition which indicated that he had to be dependent on a full-time attendant 24/7. “The matter is of more concern for the reason that at the age of 55 plus, the respondent No.1 is no more a child and to handle him is a much difficult task. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is that this Court has always taken a real-time assessment of the compensation and does not approach the issue as a formality”, it added.

Considering the basic issue of the appellant requiring at least two attendants per day till the time he survives, as also the rates at which such help can be engaged, including the cost of his expenditure, and medical expenses, the Bench awarded a compensation of Rs 50 lakh.

The Bench concluded the matter by observing,“....in the present case, we have arrived at a figure being well conscious of the ground realities and the need to sufficiently compensate the respondent No.1, so as to ensure that the remainder of his life is spent with some dignity”, it held.

Cause Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Avtar Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 625)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Joy Basu, Advocates Anoop George, Prerna Mehta,

Respondent: AOR Gopal Jha, Advocates Shireesha Sharma, Priyanshi Goel

Click here to read/download Judgment







Justice Ahsanuddin AmaahJustice R Mahadevan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.