Gujarat High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Minaben Rajendrabhai Chopra on 1 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2125 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2125 of 2023
==========================================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
MINABEN RAJENDRABHAI CHOPRA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ESHA BHAVSAR for MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Esha Bhavsar for learned
advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the appellant and learned
advocate Mr. D. D. Bhatt for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Though Rule served, none appeared for respondent Nos.5
and 6. Perused the record.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the appellant -
Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award
dated 17.11.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Gandhidham @ Kutch in M.A.C.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
No.160 of 2017.
3. The facts in brief of the case are as under:
* On 10.12.2015, deceased Rajendra Mafatlal
Chopra was travelling alongwith his relatives towards
Ahmedabad from Palitana in Veto Car No.GJ-12-BF-2574.
When the car reached near Dhingadha village on
Dhandhuka - Bagodara Highway, opponent No.1 driver of
the Car lost control over steering. Resultantly, the
deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed.
* Claimants being the legal heirs of the
deceased filed claim petition for a compensation of
Rs.75,00,000/- from the opponents. Opponents were
served with summons. Opponent nos.1 and 2 contested
the claim petition by filing Written Statement at Exhs.26
and 31 respectively. While opponent No.3 - insurance
company also contested the claim petition by filing
Written Statement at Exh.22.
* After framing of issues, claimant No.1 - widow
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
of deceased submitted her deposition at Exh.40 and
produced FIR, Panchnama, PM report, death summary
and other medical bills as well as relevant documents in
support of claim petition.
* After considering the evidence, learned
Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by directing
opponents to pay an amount of Rs.59,28,599/- to the
claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
application till realisation.
* Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the appellant -
insurance company has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company
has submitted that the challenge in the appeal is mainly
on two grounds; (1) quantum of compensation and (2) the
claimants have received expenses for medical bills under
the Mediclaim. An application to produce additional
evidence under Order 41 - Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is also filed by the insurance company. He has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
submitted that the date of accident is 10.12.2015. The
claimants have produced income tax returns of the
deceased for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016-17
vide Exhs.52 to 55. It is also contended that the IT return
for the year 2016-17 is filed on 31.3.2017 (Exh.55). Since
the said IT return is post accident, the same ought not to
have been considered by learned tribunal, however,
learned tribunal considered Exh.55 and also considered IT
returns of 2014-15 and 2015-16 and average income of 3
IT returns, assessed income of deceased @ Rs.36,191,/-
which is on the higher side and against the settled
principle of law. It is also submitted that at the most,
average income of IT returns for the years 2014-15 and
2015-16 be considered. By way of an application under
Order 41 - Rule 27 of the Code, it is submitted that the
claimant had received an amount from their insurance
company for the medical expenses to the tune of
Rs.2,59,200/- and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled
to the full amount under the head of medical expenses.
The amount of Rs.2,59,200/- is required to be deducted
from the compensation. No other submissions are made,
except the above submissions.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
5. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent - original
claimant has supported the judgment and award and
submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly considered the
evidence on record and awarded just and reasonable
compensation. He has submitted that deceased was doing
business and earning Rs.60,000/- per month and to
substantiate the income, claimants have produced IT
returns for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17. The
IT return being the statutory document, learned tribunal
has rightly considered the average income of the
deceased @ Rs.36,191/- per month. Rest of the award
passed by the learned Tribunal does not require any
interference looking to the facts and circumstances of the
case.
6. Learned advocate for the respondent has placed reliance
upon the following decisions:
(a) Anjali and others v. Lokendra
Rathod reported in 2022 Law Suit (SC)
1438 (Paragraph No.9 was pressed into
service)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
(b) Malarvizhi and others v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2019
Law Suit (SC) 1968 (Paragraph No.10 was
pressed into service).
(c) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Nipeshbhai Bhagvanjibhai Patel reported
in 2024(o) GUJHC 68551 (Paragraph
Nos.27 & 29 were pressed into service)
&
(d) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Ashok Nandumal Hardasani @ Mangalani
& Others reported in 2024() GUJHC 57473
(Paragraph Nos.3 and 12 to 14 were
pressed into service).
7. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the respective parties and perused Record
and Proceedings. As per say of claimant, deceased was
doing a business of salt trading and was earning
Rs.60,000/-. At the time of accident, deceased was aged
about 47 years. In support of the contention with regard to
income, claimants have relied upon IT returns for the
Assessment Years of 2014-15 to 2017-18 (Exhs.53 to 55).
Learned tribunal, after taking average of income, assessed
income of deceased @ Rs.36,191/-. It is also contended
that the last return of year 2016-17 is post accident and
cannot be considered for assessing the income. To deal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
with this contention, I have considered Exhibit 55 which is
the income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17. It
appears that the date of filing of the return is 31 st March
2017. The date of accident is 10-12-2015. So it appears
that after almost a period of 15 months, the income tax
return for the assessment year 2016-17 was filed by
claimants. The income which is shown in Exhibit 55 is
Rs.5,65,546/-. Though the law on the point of considering
the income shown in income tax return is well settled, and
in catena of decisions, it has been held by Hon'ble the
Apex Court that the income tax return is a legal document
and the tribunal cannot overlook the income tax return
which has been relied upon by the claimants in deciding
the income. However, what is material is the date of filing
of the income tax return. If the income tax return is filed
within a reasonable period of the death of the person,
income reflected in the income tax return filed post
accident can be considered by learned tribunal, subject to
any contrary and clinching evidence led by other side to
disbelieve the income mentioned in the income tax return
filed post accident.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
8. In the present case, undisputedly, the income tax return is
filed after a considerable gap of time that is almost after
15 months. More particularly, if the comparison is made
with the income tax return of 2014-15 and 2015-16, the
income shown in the return of 2016-17 has increased to a
great extent, Rise in the income shown in income tax
return of 2016-17 is not only on the upward direction but
also there is a spike in the income. There is no explanation
forthcoming from the claimant side with regard to gap of
filing income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17
from the date of accident.
9. It appears from the Rojkam of MACP reveals that the claim
petition filed on 4-9-2017. The decisions which have been
relied upon by learned advocate for the respondents-
claimants are not useful to the claimants for the reason
that in the case of Anjali (Supra), the issue before the
Honorable Apex Court was with regard to disregarding
income tax return of the deceased for the last year.
However, learned advocate for the respondent could not
point out from the decision that whether the question of
filing income tax return was after the date of accident or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
before the date of accident. As there is no fact found from
reading the same decision, the ratio is not applicable to
the facts of the present case.
10. In the case of Malarvizhi (Supra), annual income
mentioned in the tax return was not properly appreciated
by the learned tribunal and in the same background of
facts, Hon'ble Apex Court held that determination of
income must proceed on the basis of income tax return. In
the present case, the issue is on a footing that whether the
annual income reflected in income tax return which is filed
post date of accident can be considered for determining
the income. Since the issue discussed before the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the aforesaid decision is on a different
context, the same is not helpful to the case of respondent
claimant.
11. Considering the evidence led by claimant before the
learned tribunal, it would be just and reasonable to
consider the annual income reflected in the income tax
return for the assessment years from 2014-15 and 2016-
17 which is Rs.3,75,830/- and Rs.4,36,680/- respectively.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
The income tax return (Exhibit 55) for the assessment year
2016-17 cannot be considered in the background of the
above discussion and the average income from the
assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is required to be
considered in absence of any other evidence with regard
to income. Except the income tax return, claimants could
not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate
the claim of income at Rs.60,000/- per month. Thus, the
income of claimant is assessed at Rs.32,489/-
(Rs.3,75,830/- +Rs.4,36,680/- / 12 months respectively).
12. The next question which has been raised by the learned
advocate for the appellant with regard to deduction of
Mediclaim amount which has been received by the
claimant under the said head. So far as the deduction of
amount received by the victim under the Mediclaim by the
claimant, whether to be deducted from the compensation
claimed under the Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act is no
more res integra in the decision of Nipeshbhai
Bhagvanjibhai Patel (Supra). Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court while discussing the issue, has observed as
under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
"27. According to this Court, the Tribunal has committed a
gross error of law while not granting such medical expenses to
claimants because, it is well settled law that tort feasor cannot
get advantage to claim any benefit, which is drawn by
claimants under Insurance Policy be it Life or Medi-claim
obtained by them by paying insurance premium from their
pocket to protect their life/health.
29. We are conscious of the fact that there is no cross-
objection filed by claimants, claiming such amount of medical
expenses, which was not granted by Tribunal while awarding
compensation. Nonetheless, it has come on record that
deceased died during course of treatment on 23.03.2011, then
considering her 5 days hospitalization and keeping in mind the
principle of just compensation and that the Motor Vehicle Act
is a benevolent piece of legislation and this Court having
power under Order XLI Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code to
pass appropriate order, considering peculiar facts and
circumstances so narrated herein above, we are of the view
that claimants would also entitle to receive medical expenses
of Rs.2,27,787/- (Exh.37)."
13. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashok
Nandumal Hardasani (Supra), the Coordinate Bench of
this Court, while deciding the issue of amount received
under medical expenses from the insurance company of
the victim, can be deducted from the compensation for
medical expenses under the claim petitions. The
Coordinate Bench has referred the decision of
Satishkumar Rasiklal Doctor v. Baldevbhai
Chhaganbhai Thakore reported in 2007(1) GCD 727.
Paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Ashok Nandumal Hardasani are reproduced
hereunder:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
"12. The second submission on the part of the learned
advocate Ms.Lilu Bhaya that learned Tribunal has committed
error in drawing compensation for medical expenses despite the
claimant has received the amount of medical expenses from the
mediclaim is also misconceived argument. This Court in case of
Ramanlal Ranchhoddas Shah (supra) has addressed this issue. The
prudent act of claimant to purchase mediclaim policy to
avail any expenses occurred for medical treatment would not
absolve the liability of the tortfeasor from paying compensation for
the medical expenses claimant has suffered. Liability of the
tortfeasor has to be viewed separately and distinctively. The
prudent and rational act of the claimant for covering the risk of
medical treatment by purchasing mediclaim policy cannot take
away liability of the Insurance Company to pay the
compensation under the law of tort. This issue was again
discussed by this Court in case of Satishkumar Rasiklal Doctor vs.
Baldevbhai Chhaganbhai Thakore - 2007 (1) GCD 727, as
under: :
"9. We will now refer to the decisions on the question
whether the claimant can be denied compensation for
medical expenses and treatment on the ground that such
expenses and treatment charges were reimbursed to him
under a policy of insurance for which the claimant had
already paid the premium.
9.1 In Helen C. Rebellow v. Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation (para 37) the Apex Court held as
under:
37. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the
provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the
contribution made by an employee during the tenure
of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled
to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental
death. This amount is secured, is certain to be
received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles
Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the
happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not
take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also
earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in
the form of his contribution in the service in terms of
the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his
death. The heirs receive family pension even
otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation
between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy
amount is received either by the insured or the heirs of
the insured on account of the contract with the insurer,
for which insured contributes in the form of premium.
It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till
maturity after paying all the premiums, in the case of
death insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs,
again in terms of the contract for the premium paid.
Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not
on account of any accidental death but otherwise on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in
terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly
any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc.,
though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by
the heirs on account of one's death but all these have
no correlation with the amount receivable under a
statute occasioned only on account of accidental
death. How could such an amount come within the
periphery of Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as
Specuniary advantage liable for deduction. When we
seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on
similar and same plane having nexus inter se between
them and not to which, there is no semblance of any
correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his
own money for which he receives the amount has no
correlation to the compensation computed as against
the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the
accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as
compensation under the Act is on account of the injury
or death without making any contribution towards it,
then how can the fruits of an amount received through
contributions of the insured be deducted out of the
amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The
amount under this Act he receives without any
contribution. As we have said the compensation
payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory
while the amount receivable under the life insurance
policy is contractual.
9.2 The aforesaid view has been reiterated in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan :
36. We are in full agreement with the observations
made in the case of Helen Rebello that the principle of
balancing between losses and gains, by reason of
death, to arrive at the amount of compensation is a
general rule, but what is more important is that such
receipts by the claimants must have some correlation
with the accidental death by reason of which alone
the claimants have received the amounts....
37. We therefore, do not allow any deduction as
pressed by the Insurance Company on account of
receipts of insurance policy and social security
benefits received by the claimants.
9.3 At this stage, it will not be out of place to record that as
far as this Court is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court
had also enunciated this principle as far back as in the year
1972 in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Heirs & Legal
Representatives of Decd.
Naranbhai Munjabhai Vadhia reported in (1972) 13 GLR
920 in the following terms:
13. Coming now to the question of damages, we have
already settled the question as to what is collateral
benefit in First Appeal Nos. 159-160 of 1968 decided
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
on November 3, 1971. We have pointed out the legal
position as enunciated in the latest decision by the
House of Lords in Parry v. Cleaver 1969 (1) AER 555,
where it was accepted as a settled principle of
common law, which was followed not only in England
but in all other common law jurisdiction after
Bradburn's case 1874-80 All.E.R. Reprint 195, that
insurance policy amounts were collateral benefits
which the deceased had bought with his own money.
It was a benefit derived by way of prudent savings
effected for his own benefit under a contract by the
injured party whose benefit could never go to the
tortfeasor. It is only a like which can be deducted from
the like and, therefore intrinsic nature of the payment
must be considered before any such deductions can
be made. That is why any pension amount or
retirement-cum-gratuity benefit which had the
insurance element could never be deducted. It was
only that pension which was earned after the
contributions had ceased that it assumed the
character of wages and which alone could be
deducted, when computing the economic loss of future
earnings or loss of wages. Therefore, in view of that
settled legal position, the learned Tribunal was
obviously wrong in excluding the amount of Rs.
2000/- of insurance money and of Rs. 1344/- the
amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity which were
of the same character as insurance money. These
collateral benefits could not be deducted from the
compensation amount.
9.4 The aforesaid view was reiterated by another
Division Bench in the case of Amthiben Maganlal wd/o.
Maganlal Pranlal Mistry v. Superintendent, Geophysicist,
ONGC reported in 17 GLR 910 in the following words:
18. Something was urged on the ground that from the
insurance the family had received a sum of Rs.
61000/- but evidence was that Rs. 11000 was by
way of paid up policy and the rest was insured
amount where only one premium was paid by the
deceased. Even in this connection the legal position is
well settled after our aforesaid decision in LIC v. LR of
the deceased Naranbhai 12 GLR 920 at page 937. We
have already settled this question by holding that it
was a collateral benefit in First Appeal Nos. 159-160
of 1968 decided on November 3, 1971 (Jaipur Golden
Transport & Co. Ltd. v. Keshavlal Mangalal and Ors.).
There the entire legal position is considered as
enunciated in the latest decision by the House of
Lords in Parry v. Cleaver 1969 (1) A.E.R. 535, where it
was accepted as a settled principle of common law,
which was followed not only in England but in all
other common law jurisdiction after Bradburn's case
1874-80 All.E.R. Reprint 195, that the insurance policy
amounts were collateral benefits which the deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
had bought with his own money. It was a benefit
derived by way of prudent savings effected for his
own benefit under a contract by the injured party
whose benefit could never go to the tort-feasor. It was
only a like which can be deducted from the like and,
therefore, intrinsic nature of the payment must be
considered before any such deductions could be
made. Therefore, this collateral benefit could never be
deducted from the compensation amount as per the
settled legal position.
9.5 In Ramanlal Ranchhoddas Shah v. Asthi Gustadji
Rustomji and Ors. (decided on 12th April, 1978) 19 GLR
990 (para 16) also, the claimant had got reimbursement of
medical expenses from the Insurance Company for
which he had paid premium. A Division Bench of this
Court again held as under:
16. Again, this is not a case in which the claimant
was entitled to free medical aid by virtue of his
employment or some such consideration and that he
has been reimbursed on such consideration. This is
also not a case in which the Government or some such
official agency under the scheme like the National
Health Scheme of U.K. Provides free medical aid to the
claimant, in which case, different considerations could
possibly weigh, though we should not be taken to
have expressed a considered opinion on the question.
This is a case in which the claimant had joined a
scheme of insurance by paying premium and
therefore, benefits which he got were ones which he
had obtained with his own money and these benefits
could never go to a tort-feaser as per the ratio laid
down in LIC v. L.R. of deceased Naranbhai 13 GLR
920, to which reference has already been made by the
learned Judge in his judgment in para 14; and, in this
view of the matter also, the appellant would be
entitled to the said amount to the extent of Rs. 6157-
39 Ps.
9.6 The same Division Bench of this Court went a step
further in Nirmaladevi Dilipkumar Gandhi v. Gulamnabi
Usmanbhai Shaikh (decided on 26/27 April 1978) 19
GLR 620 (624) and held as under:
...In other words, even if a claimant has received free
medical service at his own residence or at the
residence or private nursing home or clinic of a
medical practitioner who is his friend or relative or
from a private medical practitioner who is not thus
connected with him but who has chosen to render free
services for some other personal or social
consideration, the claimant must still be compensated
by estimating the fair and reasonable cost of
supplying those services. The tortfeaser cannot
benefit, under such circumstances, by escaping his
liability to compensate the claimant on the ground that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
the medical services were tendered to him entirely
free. The question from what source the claimant's
needs have been met, the question who had given the
services, the question whether the claimant was under
a legal or moral liability to pay or reimburse the
provider of services, are all irrelevant, so far as the
tortfeasor is concerned. The claimant, when he
recovers such damages, will hold them in trust for the
person who rendered the services to him. In our
opinion, therefore, the Tribunal's approach to the
question of compensation under this sub-head is
vitiated by an extraneous consideration and the same
has consequently affected its award.
13. We might make it clear that we are confining these
observations to free medical services rendered to a
claimant in circumstances such as those mentioned
above. We do not wish to express any opinion on the
question as to whether when free medical service is
rendered to a claimant at a general public hospital, he
would still be entitled to be compensated even though
he was not required to pay for the treatment. Such a
case is not before us and what we have said above
should not be held to apply necessarily in such
circumstances. We are making this reservation
because the question of compensation in such a case
is not free from doubt and even in England there
appears prima facie to be some inconsistency in
judicial approach on the question (see Daish v.
Wauton (1972) 2 QB 262 and Cunningham v. Harrison
(1973) 3 WLR 97).
10. It is surprising that the Tribunal has not at all
considered the above binding decisions of this Court and the
decision of the Apex Court in Helen C. Rebellow all of
which were rendered before the date of the award. As
regards the deduction on account of insurance amount, the
finding of the learned Judge cannot be accepted in
view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Helen C.
Rebello (Supra) and the four Division Bench judgments of
this Court which were rendered more than twenty years
before the award under challenge in this appeal. Hence, the
deduction made by the Tribunal must be held to be
contrary to the well settled legal position settled in this
State since 1972."
13. In case of Mrs.Helen C. Rebello and others vs.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another r
- 1999 (1) SCC 90, it was an issue before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that whether the amount of the life
insurance received by
the heirs on account of victim's death can be deducted from
the
compensation wor ked out under the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the amount
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
received from the life insurance corporation on death of the
victim under
the life insurance policy cannot be equated with the amount
received on account of accidental death. The relevant paras
are
34 and 35, which reads as under :
"34. Thus, it would not include that which claimant
receives on account other form of deaths, which he would
have received even apart from accidental death. Thus, such.
pecuniary advantage would have no correlation to
the accidental death for which compensation is computed.
Any amount received or receivable not only on account of
the accidental death but that would have come to the
claimant even otherwise, could not be construed to be the
"pecuniary advantage", liable for deduction. However, where
the employer insures his employee, as against injury or
death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of
such insurance on the happening of such
incidence may be an amount liable for deduction.
However, our legislature has taken not of such
contingency, through the proviso of Section 95. Under it the
liability of the insurer is excluded in respect of injury or
death, arising out of, in the course of employment of an
employee.
35. This is based on the principle that the claimant for
the happening of the same incidence may not gain twice
from two sources. This, it is excluded thus, either through
the wisdom of legislature or through the principle of loss
and gain through deduction not to give gain to the
claimant twice arising from the same transaction, viz.,
same accident. It is significant to record here in both the
sources, viz., either under the Motor Vehicles Act or from
the employer, the compensation receivable by the claimant
is either statutory or through the security of the employer
securing for his employee but in both cases he receives the
amount without his contribution. How thus an amount
earned out of one's labour or contribution towards one's
wealth, savings, etc. either for himself or for his family,
which such person knows, under the law, has to go to his
heirs after his death either by succession or under a will
could be said to be the 'pecuniary gain' only on account of
one's accidental death. This, of course, is pecuniary gain
but how this is equitable or could be balanced out of the
amount to be received as compensation under the Motor
Vehicle Act. There is no co-relation between the two
amounts. Not even remotely. How can an amount of loss
and gain of one contract could be made applicable to the
loss and gain of another contract. Similarly, how an
amount receivable under a statute has any co-relation
with an amount earned by an individual. Principle of loss
and gain has to be on the same place within the same
sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary or
any provisions of law."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
14. In view of above settled law, the amount which the
claimant / victim has received under the head of
Mediclaim from its insurer cannot have any barring while
considering the medical expenses claimed under the
compensation application filed by invoking jurisdiction of
M. V. Act and, therefore, the contention of learned
advocate for the appellant for deducting Rs.2,59,200/-
from the medical bills of Rs.4,85,672/- is not accepted and
the same is rejected.
15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the
appellant - insurance company is entitled to refund
following amount of compensation under the different
heads:
Sr. Name of the Head Compensation
No. Amount
(In Rs.)
1 Future loss of Income :
2014-15 375830-17540 358290
(Plus)
2015-16 436680-15230 421450
Total Rs.7,79,740 divided by 2
= Rs.3,89,870/- divided by 12
Monthly Income Rs.32,489
(PLUS)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
Prospective Income (25%)
32489+8,122 40611
(Minus)
Personal Expenses
40611 X 1/4th = 10152
(40611-10152= 30459)
(Rs.30459X 12 X 13) 47,51,604/-
2. Other Heads 1,50,000/-
3. Medical Expenses 4,85,672/-
Total Compensation 53,87,276/-
(-) Awarded Amount 59,28,599/-
Excess Compensation / 5,41,323/-
Refund
16. Therefore, total amount of compensation would come to
Rs.53,87,276/-, which is required to be awarded with 9%
p.a. interest from the date of claim petition till its
realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. It is
pertinent to note that learned Tribunal has awarded
Rs.59,28,599/- to the claimant, therefore, Rs.5,41,323/-
(Rs.59,28,599 - Rs.53,87,276) is required to be refunded
with 9% p.a. interest.
17. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed:
[A] The present appeal is allowed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
accordingly in above terms.
[B] The Insurance Company is entitled to
refund for an amount of Rs.5,41,323/- with
accrued interest thereon from the date of claim
petition till its realisation before the concerned
Tribunal, within a period of Four Weeks from the
date of receipt of this order.
[C] The Tribunal shall refund the excess to
the appellant by `Account Payee Cheque' / `RTGS' /
'NEFT', after proper verification and after following
due procedure.
[D] Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent
back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. No order
as to costs.
18. In view of partly allowing of the main matter, connected
Civil Application will no longer survive and the same
stands disposed of accordingly.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2125/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
19. After passing the above order, learned advocate for the
respondent has requested to stay this order for four weeks
to which learned advocate for the appellant has `no
objection.' Hence, this order is stayed for four weeks, as
requested by learned advocate for the respondent.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
vk
