Supreme Court converts in-kind directions for prosthetics and wheelchair into Rs.12 lakh monetary award with interest

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by The Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. against a High Court order that had directed the insurer to provide prosthetic limbs, a motorised wheelchair and ancillary services to a motor-accident victim. The issue concerned whether an insurer could be compelled to provide ongoing in-kind support and monitoring, or whether liability was confined to monetary indemnification.

The Court allowed the insurer’s contention that its liability was to indemnify pecuniary loss and that the High Court ought not to have cast an obligation to ensure the claimant’s future wellbeing in kind. The Court set aside the impugned directions and converted the in-kind relief into a monetary award, directing the insurer to pay an additional Rs.12,00,000 with simple interest at 6% within two months. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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’.” The Court further recorded that it was not increasing the award but was “only stating the award in monetary terms”.

Background

The dispute arose from a 21 December 2008 accident in which the claimant, then aged 22 and working as a cleaner, sustained grievous injuries when the tempo he was travelling in collided with a stationary tanker. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the tempo driver negligent and accepted medical evidence, including a disability certificate (PW‑3/A), recording 90% impairment of both lower limbs with an amputation. The Tribunal assessed the claimant’s income at Rs.4,000, enhanced 50% for future prospects, applied a multiplier of 17, and awarded total compensation of Rs.16,34,400 with 9% interest.

The insurer did not appeal the Tribunal award; the claimant appealed to the High Court, which directed the insurer to provide prosthetic limbs, one motorised wheelchair to the claimant’s satisfaction, telephone numbers of responsible officers, payment of travel costs from Patna to Delhi for fitment, and biannual checks to ensure functioning of the devices. The insurer approached this Court by special leave, contending that such supervisory and ongoing obligations could not be imposed on an insurer whose duty was to indemnify in monetary terms.

The Supreme Court accepted that the High Court’s order was well-intentioned but went beyond the insurer’s legal obligation. The Court examined the costs of appliances and periodic replacement, observed that a prosthetic limb would cost approximately Rs.2 lakhs and require replacement every five years and that a motorised wheelchair would cost about Rs.40,000 with similar periodic replacement. On that basis, and considering the claimant’s age and the likely number of replacements, the Court quantified future mobility and appliance needs at Rs.10 lakhs for prosthetics and Rs.2 lakhs for the wheelchair, and directed payment of Rs.12 lakhs with 6% simple interest. The Court set aside the High Court’s in-kind directions but disposed of the appeal by deciding the enhancement that the claimant had sought before the High Court. The Court directed the claimant to furnish bank account details for transfer and noted that pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 707 (SLP (C) No. 3484 of 2020) Case Title: The Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suraj Kumar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment