Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

3 August 2021

Case No.

Civil Appeal No.4576/2021

Result

Allowed

Bench

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hrishikesh Roy

Citation

[2021] 5 S.C.R. 927 : 2021 INSC 373

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation under – For permanent disability – Whether while determining compensation, whether directions can be passed in the manner of a direction in perpetuity for continued maintenance of a prosthetic limb for the injured claimant – Held: Determination of such compensation cannot be by a continuing mandamus – The determination must take place at one go – However, there must be a provision for maintenance/replacement of the prosthetic limb, while fixing a lump sum amount – Claimant is directed to file an affidavit setting forth the cost of purchased prosthetic limb and showing what kind of maintenance/replacement would be required – Quantum of compensation to be determined thereafter.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – For permanent disability – In motor accident case while determining compensation, Court below directed the insurance company to keep Rs.60 lakhs in an interest bearing deposit from which Rs.50 thousand would be generated as interest to meet the expenses of two semi-skilled attendants for the rest of claimant’s life – Court’s direction to Government to examine whether there could be a Government policy with regard to assistance to be provided to permanently disabled adolescents whose parents are not economically well off – Held: In cases where degree of disability is high, there is mental disability, it is case of a young person etc. without it being possible to anticipate all possibilites, applying of multiplier method in Kajal case*, would be the appropriate course – In the facts of the present case, appropriate course would be to follow method in Kajal case* – High Court is directed to determine appropriate lump sum amount based on multiplier method as set out in Kajal case* – Addressing such larger issue, in a motor accident claim proceeding, amounts to being beyond jurisdiction of the Court – It has taken the colour of a Public Interest Litigation – Therefore, this aspect sought to be examined by a Bench of High Court dealing with Public Interest Litigation determining the issue in general and not restricting to the present case.

*Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413 : [2020] 3 SCR 622 – relied on.

Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Others, (2003) 2 SCC

274 : [2002] 4 Suppl.SCR 499;

Sapna v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2008)

The Order of the Court was passed by SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. CIVIL APPEAL No.4576/2021 Leave granted. The sole question which arises for determination in this appeal filed by the Insurance Company is whether directions can be passed by the Court while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) in the manner of a direction in perpetuity for continued maintenance of a prosthetic limb for the injured claimant. The respondent No.1 viz. Mukesh Kumar, was 19 years of age when he met with an accident on 25.8.2017 which resulted in perman

View Subscription Plans →