Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 155 (KAR)

Binup Kumar R v. Prabhakar H. G.

2009-02-20

V.JAGANNATHAN

body2009
JUDGMENT V. Jagannathan , J.—The appellant met with an accident and suffered fracture of left femur and degloving injury to the lateral side of left ankle exposing underlying tissues and the claim petition filed by him was allowed by awarding Rs.1,47,500/-. Not being satisfied with the said quantum, the claimant is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel Shri R. Krishna Reddy for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding the amount which was paid under the Mediclaim Policy and, therefore, the said amount of Rs.50,000/- which the appellant had received under the Mediclaim Policy also ought to have been given by the Tribunal and secondly, the amount is on the lower side under the heads of future medical expenses and loss of amenities of life and so also under the head of pain and suffering. In support of the submission as regards the Tribunal not awarding the amount received by the claimant under the Mediclaim Policy, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of Shaheed Ahmed v. Shankaranarayana Bhat, reported in ILR 2008 Karnataka 3277 : (2008 (5) AIR Kar R 460). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri H.S. Lingaraj for the respondent Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal was justified in not taking into account the amount already received by the claimant under the Mediclaim Policy and there is no provision for double payment being made under the same head. It is submitted that just as in the case of Government servants who are entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses and the amount that is reimbursed to the Government servants is deducted from out of the amount actually assessed by the Tribunal and, on the same lines, the Tribunal, in the instant case also, has rightly disallowed the amount which was paid to the claimant under the Mediclaim Policy. As such, no interference is called for in respect of the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. 4. In the light of the above submissions put forward, the question is whether the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the amount received by the claimant under the Mediclaim Policy. 5. Having considered the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that no person can be allowed to reap the same advantage twice. 4. In the light of the above submissions put forward, the question is whether the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the amount received by the claimant under the Mediclaim Policy. 5. Having considered the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that no person can be allowed to reap the same advantage twice. In other words, if the claimant has received Rs.50,000/- under the Mediclaim Policy and the balance amount of the medical expenses incurred by him is awarded by the Tribunal, the net effect is that, whatever amount actually incurred by the claimant has been paid to him. If the argument of the appellant_s counsel is to be accepted and if the amount received under the Mediclaim Policy is to be ignored, then the situation that would arise will be, the claimant would be getting double payment and though the actual medical expenses incurred, for example, is Rs.1,00,000/-, the claimant would be getting benefit of Rs, 1,50,000/-, which cannot be permitted having regard to the principles applicable to the assessment of compensation under various heads. 6. To draw an analogy from the case of a Government servant, whatever the amount the Government servant gets reimbursed from his employer, the said amount will be deducted from out of the total amount arrived at by the Tribunal and the balance would be paid to him. On the same lines, whatever the amount the claimant gets from any scheme like Mediclaim etc., the said amount will have to be deducted while assessing the actual amount payable to the claimant Therefore, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant and the settled position in law is that the actual amount that is incurred or the amount that is actually spent for treatment by the claimant alone will have to be awarded by the Tribunal. Under the said circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in taking note of the amount already received by the appellant under the Mediclaim Policy. 7. As far as the other heads arc concerned, there is justification to increase the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering by Rs. 15,000/-and towards future medical treatment, a further sum of Rs.8,000/- is awarded and under the head of loss of amenities of life, a further sum of Rs. 7. As far as the other heads arc concerned, there is justification to increase the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering by Rs. 15,000/-and towards future medical treatment, a further sum of Rs.8,000/- is awarded and under the head of loss of amenities of life, a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- needs to be awarded. As far as the head of loss of future earning capacity is concerned, in view of the disability percentage taken by the Tribunal being far too low, the amount needs to be enhanced by awarding a further sum of Rs.32,000/-. 8. Thus, the total increase in the compensation will be Rs. 65,000/- out of which, Rs. 8,000/- towards future treatment shall not carry any interest and the rest of the amount will carry interest at 6%. The enhanced amount be paid to the claimant. The appeal stands allowed in part thus. 9. Appeal partly allowed.