HMK 902. FA-111-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2021 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ….Appellant Versus 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 SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Digitally signed by SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Date: 2026.06.18 16:49:36 +0530 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