Bombay High Court
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.versusROHIT UDAYRAJ PAL AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court upheld the Tribunal’s award, rejected the insurer’s objections, and enhanced the compensation by Rs.5,00,000 for future artificial‑limb replacement.
Summary
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. appealed a Tribunal order that awarded Rs.17,22,426 plus interest to Rohit Udayraj Pal & Anr. for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The insurer argued that the driver’s lack of a valid licence breached the policy and that the Tribunal should not award Rs.2,05,000 for a future artificial‑limb replacement without proper evidence, and that the cost estimate was given by a non‑doctor. The Court held that the driver’s licence issue does not preclude the insurer from paying and recovering from the vehicle owner, that the award for the artificial limb is reasonable, and that a seller’s estimate is admissible. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in G. Vivek, the Court affirmed the Tribunal’s award and added a lump‑sum of Rs.5,00,000 for future replacements. The appeal was dismissed and the enhanced award stands.
Issues considered
- Whether the driver’s lack of a valid licence constitutes a breach of the insurance policy that bars payment to the claimant.
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs.2,05,000 for future artificial‑limb replacement without the claimant’s direct evidence.
- Whether the testimony of a person running a surgical business, rather than a medical doctor, is sufficient to determine the cost of the artificial limb.
- Whether the quantum of the award, including the additional Rs.5,00,000 for future replacement, is reasonable.
Subjects
- insurance
- motor vehicle accident
- policy breach
- driver licence
- artificial limb
- quantum of damages
- future replacement
- tribunal award
- appellate court
Judgment
HMK 902. FA-111-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2021
Digitally
SAYYED signed by
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ….Appellant
SAYYED
SAEED SAEED ALI
ALI AHMED ALI
AHMED Date:
ALI
2026.06.18
16:49:36
Versus
+0530
Rohit Udayraj Pal & Anr. .…Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Ms. Kalpana Trivedi for the Appellant.
Mr. T. J. Mendon for the Respondents.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 17th JUNE 2026
P. C. :
1. By consent, taken up for final hearing.
2. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging
order of the Tribunal dated 23rd September, 2019, whereby, Rs.17,22,426/-
has been awarded alongwith interest towards injury caused to the original
applicant because of the accident.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the
original claimant.
4. The first submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company is that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid license and,
therefore, there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy. In my
view, the Tribunal has considered this aspect and after applying the settled
position in law that in such circumstances, third party should not suffer, has
granted liberty to the Insurance Company to pay and recover the same from
the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, no interference is called for on this
1 of 3
HMK 902. FA-111-2021.doc
issue and the submission made by the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company is rejected.
5. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company is that the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,05,000/- for an
artificial limb to be replaced in future without the claimant bringing on
record any evidence. There is no dispute that there was an injury to the leg
and the claimant has to use an artificial limb. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of G. Vivek vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. 1,
has judicially observed that such artificial limb requires regular replacement
after every 05 years. In this case, the claimant was 23 years old and,
therefore, it cannot be said that no replacement will be needed in future.
Once the replacement of artificial limb is confirmed, then the only issue is
with respect to the amount of Rs.2,05,000/-. The artificial limb based on
various factors ranges from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/-. The figure of
Rs.2,05,000/- cannot be considered as unreasonable. The Tribunal did not
have the benefit of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the evidence led by
the claimant is of a person who was running a surgical business and not the
doctor and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding
Rs.2,05,000/-. In my view, what is relevant is the cost of the artificial limb
and the best person for estimating the cost of the artificial limb would be a
person who is selling such artificial limb and not the doctor and, therefore,
this contention is rejected.
7. In my view, by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in G. Vivek (Supra) with regard to the regular replacement of the artificial
limb, this Court awards Rs.5,00,000/- without interest towards future
replacement as a lumpsum amount.
1 2023 ACJ 585
2 of 3
HMK 902. FA-111-2021.doc
8. The original amount awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed and
further enhanced by Rs.5,00,000/- without interest. The original claimant
would be entitled to withdraw the original amount and the enhanced
amount.
9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company also disputes the
quantum. I do not see any perversity in the quantum awarded by the
Tribunal.
10. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
3 of 3
Checking your session…