The Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Suraj Kumar

2025 INSC 707 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No…….…….of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.3484 of 2020)

THE TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

SURAJ KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Insurance Company is in appeal from an order of

the High Court which directed the appellant to provide

prosthetic limbs and one motorized wheelchair to the

satisfaction of the victim, who was the claimant before the

Motor Accident Tribunal. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora from Patna to Delhi for carrying out the fitment of the Date: 2025.05.15 18:38:31 IST Reason:

prosthetic limbs and procurement of the motorized

Page 1 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No. 3484 of 2020 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 presumably to

ensure replacement on normal means and terms.

3. The Insurance Company is before us contending 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

wellbeing in future will not be the duty of the insurer nor can

such an obligation be cast on it.

4. We are of the opinion that the appellant is perfectly

right in raising such a contention against the impugned

order. It would have been better for the High Court to have

computed the monetary compensation which would cover

the aspect of provision of mobility and prosthetic limb, as

also compute in monetary terms, as to what would ensure

the future wellbeing of the victim. This could very well have

been done upon ascertaining the price of the wheelchair or

the prosthetics and also the periodicity of replacement

Page 2 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No. 3484 of 2020 while awarding attendant charges and future treatment

expenses.

5. On facts, the respondent has suffered an accident

while he was travelling in a Tempo of his employer as a

cleaner on 21.12.2008. The vehicle was driven rashly and

negligently and it hit a stationary tanker. Sufficient evidence

was produced before the Tribunal regarding the accident

and the negligence alleged. The disability was proved by

way of examining a Medical Technician and the Doctor who

treated the victim and also the Doctor who was a member of

the Board which examined the victim, assessed his disability

and issued the certificate. PW-3/A was the disability

certificate which found both his lower limbs having 90%

impairment, one having been amputated. The income of the

respondent was assessed at Rs.4000/-. 50% was added for

future prospects and the multiplier was taken as 17. The

Tribunal on the pecuniary and non-pecuniary aspects

awarded total compensation of Rs.16,34,400/- with 9%

interest adopting the functional disability to be 100%. The

Insurance Company did not file an appeal, and it was the

Page 3 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No. 3484 of 2020 claimant who took the matter in appeal to the High Court,

wherein the impugned order was passed.

6. 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’.

7. Looking at the total picture of the disability, the

requirement for providing sufficient mobility to the victim,

as also the future medical expenses, would be incidental to

the future wellbeing of the victim. The victim was 22 years

old when he was rendered almost immobile by the injuries

suffered in an accident. A prosthetic limb, would in any

event cost approximately Rs.2 lakhs and it would have to be

changed in every five years. Even on a conservative

estimate, the victim would require the change of at least five

prosthetic limbs in his lifetime considering his age. The

Page 4 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No. 3484 of 2020 provision of wheelchair would also take approximately

Rs.40,000/- which also 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

8. We, hence direct the Insurance Company to pay an

additional amount of Rs.12 lakhs to the victim with simple

interest @ 6 %, which shall be paid within a period of two

months.

9. 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. We do not think a remand would be

proper, especially since the accident occurred almost a

decade and a half before. Hence, we set aside the

Page 5 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No. 3484 of 2020 impugned order and decide the appeal for enhancement

filed by the claimant before the High Court.

10. The respondent is directed to provide the details of his

account into which the insurance company shall deposit/

transfer the balance amounts due, after deducting the

amounts already paid if any, through online mode within the

time as stipulated above.

11. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.

12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

...……….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 15, 2025.

Page 6 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No. 3484 of 2020