NEW DELHI MAY 15, 2025 – The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, has reversed the High Court’s order to the insurer to furnish a motorized wheelchair and prosthetic limbs at regular intervals; it further said that such commitments would have to be translated into monetary compensation.
Facts:
In this case, the insurance company appeals an order of the High Court that directs them to provide prosthetic limbs and one motorized wheelchair to the victim, who was the claimant before the Motor Accident Tribunal.
The company was further directed to provide the telephone numbers of two responsible officers and cover the cost of travel from Patna to Delhi for the fitting of prosthetic limbs and the procurement of a wheelchair.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
In addition, the company was directed to ensure the proper functioning of the prosthetic limbs and wheelchairs at least twice a year for replacement.
Appellant:
The insurance company argues that, as an insurer, its liability is to indemnify the insured’s estate for the loss through monetary compensation, as determined by the tribunal.
They argue that monitoring the victim’s future well-being is neither their duty nor an obligation that can be cast on them.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court should have calculated monetary compensation for the provision of mobility and prosthetic limbs, as well as the future well-being of the victim. The respondent suffered an accident while driving in a Tempo, resulting in a stationary tanker hitting the vehicle.
The disability certificate showed both lower limbs had 90% impairment, with one amputated. The income of the respondent was assessed at Rs.. 4000/-, with 50% added for prospects and a multiplier of 17.
The tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,34,400/- with 9% interest, adopting the functional disability as 100%. The insurance company did not file an appeal, and the court determined that the high court’s order could not be accepted without ensuring the victim’s well-being.
The total cost of Rs. 10 lakhs for prosthetic limbs and Rs. 2 lakhs for the wheelchair would cover the future welfare of the victim, who was 22 years old when he was left nearly immobile by the injuries. The insurance company has been ordered to pay another Rs.12 lakhs at a simple interest rate of 6%, which will be paid within two months.
Thus, the appeal is disposed of on the aforementioned terms, and any pending applications will stand disposed of. The claimant has not approached the court, and the insurance company has accepted the award.
Legal Analysis:
The Supreme Court in this judgment reasserted the basic principle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that an insurance company must indemnify the insured against pecuniary losses, not to provide personal care or post-accident surveillance of victims.
While the High Court had adopted a more sympathetic and humanitarian perspective, the Supreme Court has highlighted the legal limits of insurance liability. The court established that non-pecuniary damages and future needs such as prosthetics and attendant devices had to be brought within the purview of just compensation.
As recognized under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [1], where future medical and attendant costs are approximated and granted monetarily. The court distinguished humanitarian idealism from a legally enforceable obligation firmly. While calculating the quantum, the Court adopted the multiplier approach, earlier applied in Sarla Verma v. DTC [2], using a multiplier of 17 and a 50% escalation for future expectations.
The court adopted a realistic approach towards estimating the cost and frequency of prosthetic replacements (of the order of ₹2 lakhs every 5 years) and a wheelchair (₹40,000), thus awarding ₹12 lakhs with 6% interest as future medical and mobility-related expenses.
Although the appeal was by the insurer, the court realistically disposed of the claimant’s High Court appeal on a without-remand basis, acknowledging the significant delay from the 2008 accident. This ruling clarifies the boundaries of insurer responsibility under the Motor Vehicles Act while upholding that future rehabilitation requirements should be met through compensation in money.
Coram:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
[1] (2011) 1 SCC 343
[2] (2009) 6 SCC 121
