The determination of compensation for prosthetic/artificial limb under the Motor Vehicles Act aims to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident.

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 06.08.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in DAR no.26/19.

2. The limited challenge of the appellant to the Impugned Award is against the direction of the learned Tribunal directing that the cost of the prosthetic/artificial limb and its maintenance, if any, for the respondent no. 1/Claimant shall be paid directly by the appellant herein to the company concerned from which it has been procured by the respondent no. 1, on production of requisite invoices and other related documents pertaining to the same by the respondent no. 1.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation has to be awarded in terms of a determinative figure and cannot be open ended, as has been done by the learned Tribunal by way of the Impugned Award. In support, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in HDFC ERGO General Insurance CO. Ltd. v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 859, wherein it has been held that the process of determination of such compensation cannot be by a continuing mandamus and the said determination must take place at one go.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 does not dispute the above proposition of law. He submits that in the present case, the appellant had produced before the learned Tribunal, a quotation dated 16.07.2019 issued by M/s P&O International Pvt. Ltd. for procurement of the artificial limb for a sum of Rs.3,86,150/-. He further submits that an artificial limb has a limited life and requires constant maintenance and upkeep, and, therefore, a requisite amount in this regard should be awarded to the claimant.

5. I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. The learned Tribunal has erred in not specifying a specific amount as compensation for the prosthetic/artificial limb that the respondent no. 1 requires. In HDFC ERGO (supra), the Supreme Court, on a challenge to a similar award to non-determinative compensation for an artificial limb, observed as under:

"7. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred two judgments of this Court before us in Nagappa v.Gurudayal Singh, ((2003)2 SCC 274 and Sapna v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., (2008)7 SCC 613 opining that while determining compensation under the said Act there is no provision providing for passing of a further award once the final award is passed. The future eventualities are to be taken into consideration at that time. It was observed that:

"23.......Future medical expenses required to be incurred can be determined only on the basis of fair guesswork after taking into account increase in the cost of medical treatment."

8. In our view, the process of determination of such compensation cannot be by a continuing mandamus, in a colloquial sense, and the determination must take place at one go.

9. The aforesaid principle is not even disagreed to or contested by the respondents but what is submitted is that there must be a provision made fixing a lump sum amount for maintenance/replacement of the prosthetic limb, if necessary. We agree with the submission and in a larger canvas consider it appropriate to direct that in such kind of cases of providing facility of prosthetic limb, appropriate amount may be quantified towards such maintenance."

6. While the direction of the learned Tribunal to the appellant for providing and maintaining the prosthetic/artificial limb of the respondent no. 1, cannot be maintained and is accordingly set aside, at the same time, the respondent no. 1 has to be awarded a just and reasonable compensation towards the same.

7. In Mohd. Shabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Supreme Court, in almost identical facts, where the ag