Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Avtar Singh

2026 INSC 625
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3676 OF 2026
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)
NO.8162 OF 2020
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AVTAR SINGH & ORS.

R1 : AVTAR SINGH
R2 : DEEPAK
R3 : SHAKTI KATOCH
RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3.
The appellant has moved this Court against the impugned order
dated 15.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi in MAC. APP.
1015/2018 by which the High Court has enhanced the compensation
amount granted by the MACT, Rohini, Delhi in favour of Respondent
No.1 vide award dated 29.09.2018. However, the main area of
challenge is to the following portion of the order impugned which
reads as under:
“11. For compensation payable towards 'future

attendant charges', the insurance company shall
deposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- with the
claimant's bank, over which the insurer shall
have a lien. Monthly amounts in terms of the
notified minimum wage shall be released by the
banker from this deposit to the claimants
towards attendant charges. When the monies get
exhausted, it shall be replenished by a similar
amount to be disbursed towards further notified
rates for the life time of the claimant. Should
there be a balance of this deposited amount
upon the. demise of the claimant, the same
shall be returned to the insurer. The monies
already paid shall be set off. In view of the
extensive nature of the injury sustained by the
injured, the compensation towards 'loss of
general amenities and enjoyment of life' is
enhanced from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-”
4.
At the outset, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
submits that the impugned order is too vague to be implemented and
is based on probabilities which ought not to have been done as the
High Court in its discretion ought to have quantified the

compensation amount. It was submitted that such an open-ended
order, especially with regard to compensation, creates a
situation where both the sides are unsure and uncertain of the
future.
5.
Moreover, it was submitted that this is a novel way of
computing compensation and most importantly, the Court cannot
predict as to how long the Insurance Company itself would be in
existence to fulfill the demand and thus, it had to be quantified
as a one-time lump sum settlement amount to be paid and to be
utilized for the benefit of the injured-claimant-respondent No.1.
6.
It was contended that the Court may consider the fact that as
per the report of the Doctor in the evidence, though there is an
issue with regard to the claimant not being able to perform even
his basic daily routine, independently and would thus be requiring
an attendant, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per
month for an attendant quantified by the MACT is perfectly
justified and appropriate. It was further contended that an
independent investigator sent by the appellant to check on the
physical condition of the claimant, revealed that he can fully
recognize, interact and walk around, meaning thereby that for most
of his daily requirements, he is self-sufficient and may be with
regard to some faculties, if there is a deficiency, one attendant
per day would be more than sufficient to take care of such
eventuality.

7.
Learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the
cases of Lalan D. @ Lal vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
2020 (9), SCC 805, paragraphs No. 1 and 16 being relevant. As also
Rushi alias Ruchi Thapa vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
2025(1) SCC 635, the relevant being as paragraphs No. 1, 15 and 16,
to contend that the Court may cap the figure at Rs. 30,00,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Lakhs). It was contended that the claimant is doing
well even after almost over a decade of the accident, which clearly
shows that the resources needed by him would not be too much.
8.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant submits that
the respondent No.1 is almost in a pitiable condition as though he
is alive, but for all practical purposes, he is totally cut off
from the society inasmuch as he cannot recognize and he cannot take
decisions and may not be able to do even basic daily functions
where a decision has to be taken, for example, even if food is
placed before him, there needs to be someone to tell him to consume
the food etc. Thus it was contended that the requirement of an
attendant would be 24/7, which means at least two persons per day
and going by today's rates, even on a conservative assessment, no
attendant would be available for less than Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) per month. It was contended that the Court may thus take
a realistic view in the matter and award him appropriate
compensation.

9.
We have considered the rival contentions in depth. The picture
which emerges is clear. The respondent No.1 is in a condition which
undeniably indicates that he has to be dependent on a full-time
attendant 24/7. The matter is of more concern for the reason that
at the age of 55 plus, the respondent No.1 is no more a child and
to handle him is a much difficult task. This is one aspect of the
matter. The other aspect of the matter is that this Court has
always taken a real-time assessment of the compensation and does
not approach the issue as a formality. The purpose for insurance is
to ensure that the person insured is covered in real terms for an
eventuality which may be unfortunate, but is an incidence of life
and cannot be shred away from. Thus, the basic issue of the
appellant requiring at least two attendants per day till the time
he survives, as also the rates at which such help can be engaged,
as also the cost of his expenditure, and medical expenses, persuade
us to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Lakhs).
10. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in the following
terms.
(a) A sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) shall
be paid by the appellant to the respondent No. 1. The
amount will be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company
within six weeks from today.

(b) This amount is full and final amount and whatever
has already been paid shall be adjusted from the said
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) by the appellant-
insurance company. We also deem it appropriate that
initially, a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five
Lakhs) shall be invested in a fixed deposit with a
nationalized bank bearing the maximum interest rate on
auto-renewal facility and through his next friend
i.e., the brother who is taking care of the respondent
No.1 shall be allowed to draw a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs) for the present at one go for
meeting the immediate expenses for the time being.
When, further money would be required to be drawn, the
same shall be drawn at reasonable intervals, from the
main corpus, not exceeding Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs) at a time.
11. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to refer to the
precedents relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.
The Court would not dwell much on the same for the simple reason
that a case for compensation has to be dealt totally individually
on the facts and circumstances of that particular case. Thus, all
these decisions, at best, are persuasive in nature and in the
present case, we have arrived at a figure being well conscious of
the ground realities and the need to sufficiently compensate the

respondent No.1, so as to ensure that the remainder of his life is
spent with some dignity.
12.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.......................J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
.......................J.
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI
MARCH 23, 2026.

ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.13 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).
8162/2020
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 15-01-2020 in MACA No. 1015/2018 passed by
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi]
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Appellant(s)
VERSUS
AVTAR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 23-03-2026 This appeal was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Joy Basu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anoop George, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR


For Respondent(s) :Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Ms. Shireesha Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Priyanshi Goel, Adv.


8

O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Civil Appeal stands disposed of in terms of
the reportable signed order placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SACHIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
9