HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus MUKESH KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 5 S.C.R. 927 · Decided: 03-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
927
   [2021] 5 S.C.R. 927
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
MUKESH KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.4576/2021)
AUGUST 03, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation under – For
permanent disability – Whether while determining compensation,
whether directions can be passed in the manner of a direction in
perpetuity for continued maintenance of a prosthetic limb for the
injured claimant – Held: Determination of such compensation cannot
be by a continuing mandamus – The determination must take place
at one go – However, there must be a provision for maintenance/
replacement of the prosthetic limb, while fixing a lump sum amount
– Claimant is directed to file an affidavit setting forth the cost of
purchased prosthetic limb and showing what kind of maintenance/
replacement would be required – Quantum of compensation to be
determined thereafter.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – For permanent
disability – In motor accident case while determining compensation,
Court below directed the insurance company to keep Rs.60 lakhs
in an interest bearing deposit from which Rs.50 thousand would be
generated as interest to meet the expenses of two semi-skilled
attendants for the rest of claimant’s life – Court’s direction to
Government to examine whether there could be a Government policy
with regard to assistance to be provided to permanently disabled
adolescents whose parents are not economically well off – Held: In
cases where degree of disability is high, there is mental disability, it
is case of a young person etc. without it being possible to anticipate
all possibilites, applying of multiplier method in Kajal case*, would
be the appropriate course – In the facts of the present case,
appropriate course would be to follow method in Kajal case* –
High Court is directed to determine appropriate lump sum amount
based on multiplier method as set out in Kajal case* – Addressing
such larger issue, in a motor accident claim proceeding, amounts to
being beyond jurisdiction of the Court – It has taken the colour of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 5 S.C.R.
a Public Interest Litigation – Therefore, this aspect sought to be
examined by a Bench of High Court dealing with Public Interest
Litigation determining the issue in general and not restricting to the
present case.
*Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413 :
[2020] 3 SCR 622 – relied on.
Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Others, (2003) 2 SCC
274 : [2002] 4 Suppl.SCR 499;
Sapna v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2008)
7 SCC 613 : [2008]8 SCR 791; Nagappa v. Gurudayal
Singh & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 274 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR
499; Sapna v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. &
Anr. (2008) 7 SCC 613 : [2008] 8 SCR 791; Lalan D.
@ Lal & Another v. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, (2020) 9 SCC 805 : [2019] 8 SCR 986;
Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company
Limited & Others, (2019) 7 SCC 217 : [2019] 8 SCR
986; Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Limited & Another, (2014) 14 SCC
396 : [2013] 8 SCR 268 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2002] 4 Suppl.SCR 499
referred to
Para 7
[2008] 8 SCR 791
referred to
Para 7
[2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 499
referred to
Para 16
[2008] 8 SCR 791
referred to
Para 16
[2020] 3 SCR 622
relied on
Para 18
[2019] 8 SCR 986
referred to
Para 20
[2019] 8 SCR 986
referred to
Para 20
[2013] 8 SCR 268
referred to
Para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4576
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.11.2020 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC. APP No.218 of 2020.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
929
With
Civil Appeal No.4577 Of 2021
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Vanya Gupta,
Kumar Prashant, Karan Lahiri, Pallav Mongia, Shailender Reddy, Ms.
Ankita Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Jayesh K. Unnikrishnan, Ms. Sasmita Tripathy, Dilawar Singh,
Ms. Gitanjali Tripathy, Ms. Gautami Budhapriya, Vivekanand Singh,
Manish Maini, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Ms. Ritu Rastogi, B. S. Chowdhary,
Ms. Adira A. Nair, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Durga Dut, Ms. Samta
Pushkarna Mishra, Amar Singh, Neeraj Goswami, R. D. Singh, M/s
Vibhu Shanker Mishra and Co., Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
CIVIL APPEAL No.4576/2021
Leave granted.
The sole question which arises for determination in this appeal
filed by the Insurance Company is whether directions can be passed by
the Court while determining compensation und
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.