Money Cannot Fully Restore The Physical Health Of A Person Who Is Disabled In An Accident - Bombay HC

According to a recent ruling by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, money cannot fully restore the physical health of a person who has been disabled due to an accident.

The court upheld the compensation of ₹3.40 lakh awarded to a man whose right arm was amputated after a motor vehicle accident. Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, the single judge who made the ruling, stated that the compensation paid to an injured person is meant to make up for the loss of quality of life and the ability to earn as much as they did before the accident. The ruling came about after United India Insurance Co. filed an appeal against an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Yavatmal in Maharashtra.

In August 2009, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded a compensation of ₹3,40,768 along with an annual interest of 9% to the victim of a car accident that took place in 1991. The accident occurred when the car carrying Toufic Ahemed collided with a tree, leaving him with serious injuries. Unfortunately, the driver of the car did not survive the accident.

As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, Ahemed had to amputate his right leg below the knee, resulting in a permanent disability of 70%. The MACT ordered the insurance company to pay compensation to the victim. However, the insurance company challenged this order and approached the High Court.

The insurance company argued that since Toufic Ahemed did not possess a valid driving license, they had limited liability as per their insurance policy and requested the dismissal of the case. However, the Court observed that the insurance policy did not specify any limited liability for cases involving drivers without valid licenses.

It was noted that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, under the head of limits of liability, only covered the maximum liability in case of any type of accident as per the Motor Vehicles Act. Based on this, the Court dismissed the appeal made by the insurance company.