Summary
In two motor-accident compensation appeals, the Court rejected directions requiring an insurer to maintain a prosthetic limb indefinitely or finance attendants through a replenishable deposit. Future needs should be accounted for in a quantified lump-sum award. The Court retained determination of the prosthetic-maintenance amount after further evidence, while directing the High Court to quantify attendant charges by the multiplier method in the severely disabled child’s case. Broader policy issues were assigned to the appropriate public-interest Bench.
Issues
- Whether future prosthetic maintenance and attendant expenses could be imposed as continuing obligations on the insurer.
- How compensation should instead be quantified and which court should determine the outstanding amounts.
Held
- Future medical and maintenance needs must be considered when final compensation is assessed, using a fair estimate that accounts for likely cost increases. The statutory scheme does not contemplate fresh awards as subsequent expenses arise; perpetual monitoring, repair and replacement directions were therefore inappropriate. (¶¶ SCR 930, SCR 931, SCR 933, SCR 934)
- In the prosthetic-limb appeal, the challenged directions were set aside in favour of lump-sum quantification. The Court retained that limited issue, directing the claimant to provide purchase and maintenance or replacement evidence within four weeks, with a reply in two weeks and listing after six weeks. Other aspects stood disposed of. (¶¶ SCR 931, SCR 932)
- A deposit whose returns funded attendants and which the insurer had to augment as wages rose was also inappropriate. The multiplier method offered a suitable way to quantify lifetime attendant charges for this severely disabled child, although other factual situations could justify a differently assessed lump sum. (¶¶ SCR 933, SCR 934, SCR 935, SCR 936, SCR 937)
- The High Court was to determine the attendant-compensation lump sum using the Kajal approach. Examination of broader government policy for disabled adolescents went beyond assessment of this individual motor-accident claim and should be placed before the Bench dealing with public-interest litigation. (¶¶ SCR 937, SCR 938)
Result
Continuing-payment directions set aside. Prosthetic-maintenance quantification retained by the Supreme Court; attendant compensation left to the High Court for lump-sum assessment. Second appeal allowed with parties bearing their own costs.