The Apex Court, while setting aside High Court order, made an observation that in the process of determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, a court is not empowered to direct continuous maintenance to Insurance Company.
In the instant case, the High Court allowed an appeal filed by claimant and directed that he would be supplied with good quality and lifetime warranty-based prosthetic limb. It further directed the Insurance Company to bear the cost of repair/replacement of prosthetic limb and inquire the claimant about its working condition twice a year.
Aggrieved by this order, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and contended that such directions amounted to continuing maintenance of prosthetic limb, along with continuous monitoring.
It relied upon the apex court verdicts and submitted that during the process of determining the compensation under the Act, no provision mandates passing a further award upon the declaration of final award.
The bench set aside the directions passed by the High Court and observed that the process of determination of compensation cannot be in the nature of continuing mandamus, instead, the determination ought to be taken in one go.
Furthermore, it substituted the directions by observing that the amount required for maintenance/replacement be determined by quantifying the amount of compensation. It directed the claimant to file an affidavit mentioning the cost of prosthetic limb and the kind of maintenance/replacement it might require in future.
The bench also noted that the High Court directed GNCTD to examine any government policy that could assist the permanently disabled adolescents whose parents might not be economically-abled. It observed that this issued stands outside the jurisdiction of Motor Vehicle Proceeding, and could be taken up in the form of PIL.
Leave a Reply