Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 846
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
The Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
VERSUS
Suraj Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6880 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3484 of 2020)
Decided On : 15-05-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mrs. Tanisha Gopal, Adv. Mr. Akshay Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shrey Chathly, Adv. Mr. Archit Upadhayay, AOR
Insurers are liable only for monetary compensation for losses, not for ensuring the future well-being of accident victims; future needs must be monetarily assessed.
Headnote:(A) Insurance Act, 1938 - Insurer's liability - The court addressed the limitations of the insurer's obligations, which are primarily monetary compensation for loss of estate, rather than ensuring the victim's future well-being after an accident. (Paras 3, 6).
(B) Compensation - The tribunal awarded compensation covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary aspects totaling Rs. 16,34,400/-, which included future medical expenses and disability considerations. Appeal for further monetary enhancement was discussed. (Paras 5, 8).
Facts of the case:
The claimant suffered significant injuries, resulting in 90% disability after an accident while employed as a cleaner, leading the tribunal to award comprehensive compensation and the claimant thereafter appealing for further provisions from the insurer. (Paras 5, 8).
Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the compensation framework but rejected the need for operational monitoring of the claimant's well-being by the insurer, instead emphasizing that future needs should be calculated in monetary terms. (Paras 6, 9).
Issues: The main issues were whether the insurer had duties beyond indemnity for past losses and the adequacy of the awarded compensation for future needs. (Paras 6, 9).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while comprehensive care for the victim’s future needs is ideal, it is the monetary compensation that must reflect just compensation, not the insurer’s role in ongoing care. (Para 6).
Result: Appeal disposed of with directions for monetary enhancement.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the accident and compensation awarded. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. insurance company's liability and arguments against non-monetary obligations. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis regarding monetary computation for future wellbeing. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 4. additional compensation awarded to the victim. (Para 8) |
| 5. conclusion and order of the court regarding the appeal's disposition. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
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 from Patna to Delhi for carrying out the fitment of the prosthetic limbs and procurement of the motorized 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 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 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 p
