Future Medical Treatment Abroad Can't Be Ignored While Computing Motor Accident Compensation: P&H High Court Awards ₹9.16 Crore

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has enhanced compensation awarded to a motor accident victim from ₹52 lakh to ₹9.16 crore, holding that the claimant, who has suffered 100% permanent functional disability and his future medical treatment cannot be ignored.

The Court also granted ₹6 crore towards advanced medical treatment in the United States of America.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "The appellant/claimant has lived with the consequences of the accident for more than two decades, enduring continuous pain, repeated medical interventions, and persistent uncertainty about his health and future. The purpose of awarding compensation in such cases is not to bestow the amount, but to acknowledge suffering, alleviate hardship and secure the livelihood and the dignity of a person, who has been compelled to live with permanent and continuing disability as far as possible."

The Court added that the Insurance Company(ies), in cases of this nature, is also expected to adopt a sympathetic and liberal approach in accepting the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant.

Justice Sharma highlighted that normally, in 10 out of 100 cases approximately, the Insurance Company is required to pay compensation. Otherwise, as per procedure, the vehicle is insured for a period of one year only, and the amount of premium deposited by the public at large, which is in lieu of the coverage granted by the Insurance Company, through out the year, if not claimed, is not refunded.

"This amount of public money goes to the exchequer of private insurance companies, and in the case of government insurance companies, it goes to the Government and they enjoy interest on that amount as well. Logically speaking in accident claims cases, the amount of premium paid by the public at large in cases where no claim is made, ultimately goes to the public only," said the Court.

The bench added that it is not that the Insurance Company has to arrange this money separately in order to pay compensation in the cases like the present one. The amount of compensation paid by the Insurance Company in the present case would amount to merely taking out a drop of water from vast ocean.

The case arose out of a road accident that occurred on 13 October 2002, when the claimant, a 26-year-old practising advocate, was riding pillion on a scooter which was hit head-on by a Maruti Zen car driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side.

The claimant sustained severe head, neurological and orthopedic injuries, resulting in irreversible complications including complete bilateral hearing loss, cranial nerve damage, chronic tinnitus, insomnia, depression, vertigo and uncontrolled diabetes.

The Tribunal had awarded ₹52 lakh with 9% interest, holding the Insurance Company liable. Both the claimant and the Insurance Company preferred cross-appeals.

Upholding the Tribunal's findings, the High Court noted that the FIR was lodged promptly on the date of the accident and the testimony of the eye-witness remained unimpeached. The Insurance Company failed to lead any rebuttal evidence.

Relying on Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021), the Court reiterated that motor accident claims are decided on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the findings on rash and negligent driving and the liability of the Insurance Company were affirmed, it added.

Taking note of the claimant's deteriorating health even after two decades, the Court allowed additional evidence regarding medical treatment and sought a report from the Tribunal, which was submitted on 21 April 2023.

The Court observed that despite prolonged treatment across India, the claimant's condition had worsened and that advanced neurosurgical and cochlear implant treatment was required abroad, particularly in the USA.

Based on unrebutted medical evidence from specialists, including doctors from PGIMER, Command Hospital, and Apex Hospital, as well as estimates from Mayo Clinic, USA, the Court accepted that the claimant suffers from 100% permanent functional disability advanced treatment is not available in India.

Considering future surgeries, rehabilitation, follow-ups, travel and incidental expenses, the Court awarded a consolidated sum of ₹6 crore towards medical treatment in the USA.

Stating that "Courts, while discharging their statutory obligation, cannot remain oblivious to the human dimension underlying such claims. A just, fair, and reasonable compensation must therefore be one that responds not only to the injuries of the past, but also to the medical needs of the future, so that the appellant/claimant is not left to face a lifetime of suffering without adequate means of care," the Court enhanced the compensation.

Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant (in FAO-1923-2008) for respondent No.3 (in FAO-3500-2008).

Mr. M.S.Sachdev, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arsh Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant (in FAO-3500-2008) for respondent No.1 (in FAO-1923-2008).

Title: United India Insurance Company Limited v. Narinder Pal Singh and others

Click here to read order