Partly allowed

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri P Nanjireddy

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2023MFA/7630/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals partly. It held the Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru had territorial jurisdiction based on the claimant's post-accident residence. While confirming the bus's involvement, the Court reduced compensation by deducting employer-reimbursed medical expenses but increased future medical expenses. Final compensation awarded was Rs. 6,23,000.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and award of Tribunal modified; total compensation fixed at Rs. 6,23,000/-. Employer-reimbursed sum deducted; future medical expenses enhanced.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7630 OF 2012 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9034 OF 2012 (MV-I) IN MFA NO. 7630/2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RAMYA D

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. P. NANJIREDDY, S/O SRI. SUBBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. NO.34, 10TH MAIN CROSS END, OPP. TO ST. ANTHONI CHURCH ARCH, COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT, HEBBALA KEMPAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 024.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.4.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.8159/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶19

¶20

COMPENSATION OF RS.10,77,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT AND ETC.,

¶21

IN MFA NO. 9034/2012

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SRI. P. NANJAREDDY, S/O. SUBBIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT:- NO. 34A, 10TH MAIN CROSS END, OPP. TO ST.ANTHONI CHURCH ARCH, COFFEE BOURD LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 024.

¶24

…APPELLANT

¶25

(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD, ANDRA PRADESH.

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.4.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.8159/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

¶31

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR 'DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

MFA No.7630/2012 is filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transportation Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'APSRTC' for short) challenging both negligence and also quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶36

MFA 9034/2012 is filed by the claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶37

The undisputed facts are that the claimant has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 17.12.2008 at about 7.30 a.m., when the claimant was proceeding on Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-02-N-201, at that time, the driver of APSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.AP11-Z-259 dashed against the claimant. Due to the said accident, claimant sustained injuries. Therefore, the claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as 'MV Act' for short) seeking compensation.

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶39

Heard the arguments on both sides and perused

¶40

the records.

¶41

Learned counsel for APSRTC submitted that the

¶42

accident had occurred at Puttaparthy, the claimant is permanent resident of Puttaparthy and the APSRTC is having its transportation in Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the claim petition filed before the MACT, Bengaluru is not maintainable as the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction as per Section 166 (2) of the MV Act. He argued with reference to the affidavit filed by the claimant, crossexamination of the PW-1/claimant and also the police documents. He contended that the claim petition filed by the claimant is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. He further submitted that the APSRTC Bus is not involved in the accident but has been falsely implicated into the case. As per discharge summary at Ex.P.5 of Columbia Hospital, Bengaluru, information regarding the history of accident is given as claimant was hit by a lorry. Therefore, submitted that the APSRTC bus

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶44

is not involved in the accident but has been falsely implicated into the case just to make claim against the APSRTC. He further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and the medical expenses, hospital charges and bills were reimbursed by company of son of the claimant, which is not deducted by the Tribunal. Therefore, prays to deduct the same and also to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded under other heads by the Tribunal.

¶45

He further submitted that the claimant is a retired Principal in Government College and after retirement, he has joined Baba Learning Centre and working as Head Master. He is also a pensioner. Therefore, there is no question of granting compensation under the head 'loss of income due to disability'. On these grounds, learned counsel for the APSRTC prays to set aside/modify the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶46

Learned counsel for the APSRTC - Sri.D.Vijay

¶47

Kumar, relies upon the following judgments:-

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶50

"Regarding Jurisdiction

¶51

1. MFA 3425/2010 dated 12/01/2017 (Sri.Markondappa vs. The Managing Director)

¶52

2. MFA 200308/2015 dated 24/10/2016 (Smt.Anita and others vs. Ravindranath and another)

¶53

3. MFA 8729/2012 C/W MFA 8730/2012 dated 11/09/2015 (DB) (Smt.A.V.Rathnamma @ Rathnamma and others vs. The Managing Director) (Sri.V.Somasekar @ Sekar v. The Managing Director)

¶54

4. MFA 56/2011 dated 29/05/2013 (V.Radha vs. The Divisional Manager)

¶55

5. MFA 5581/2013 dated 07/11/2019 (Ramappa vs. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director)

¶56

6. MFA 201950/2017 dated 29/01/2018 (Nafis vs. Santosh and another)

¶57

7. In the case of Subhadra and others vs. Pankaj and another reported in ILR 2013 KAR 102

¶58

Regarding Medial reimbursement from this Medical claim against claimant is not entitled for compensation under medical expense reimbursement.

¶59

1. MFA 8451/2012 C/W MFA 9190/2012 dated 13.10.2014 (DB) (Reported) (Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sri.Rathnakar)

¶60

2. MFA 6950/2007 c/w MFA 6952/2007 and MFA 15422/2007 dated 11/10/2012. (The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., vs. Sri.Manish Gupta and another)

¶61

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶63

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the son of the claimant is residing in Bengaluru and working in a company. Therefore, the claimant being father started to reside along with his son in Bengaluru and now also the claimant is residing in Bengaluru. Therefore, the claim petition is maintainable as the claimant is residing in Bengaluru. Prior to accident, the claimant might have been residing at Puttaparthy but after the accident, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries and disabilities and therefore, started to reside at Bengaluru along with his son and he has also taken treatment at Columbia Hospital, Bengaluru. Therefore, territorial jurisdiction can be considered as the claimant is ordinarily residing at Bengaluru. Thus, submitted that claim petition filed before MACT at Bengaluru is maintainable. He further submitted that the delay in lodging the complaint alone cannot be a ground to suspect the claim petition and involvement of bus since it is sufficiently explained for what reason the complaint is belated one.

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶65

¶66

Further, the driver of the APSRTC bus is examined as RW-1, who has clearly admitted the date, time and place of accident which proves that the accident was caused by the bus. RW1 - Driver of the bus has stated that he was not negligent, but the fact remains proved that APSRTC bus has involved in the accident. Therefore, submitted that just because in the hospital records of Columbia Hospital, Bengaluru, the history of accident is recorded as the accident is caused by lorry, it is only mistake crept by the hospital authorities while recording the history. But the cogent evidence is regarding the bus

¶67

being involved in the accident can be believed. Therefore, submitted that bus is involved in the accident. He further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lesser side. Hence, prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶68

He further contended that the reimbursement of

¶69

medical expenses and hospital charges claimed by the son of the claimant is because of a contract between the son

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶71

¶72

and his employer. According to that contract, the medical expenses and hospital charges have been reimbursed. But this fact does not exonerate the APSRTC to compensate the medical expenses and hospital charges. Therefore, the Tribunal has not deducted the amount under this head and the same may be confirmed. Therefore, he prays to

¶73

enhance the quantum of compensation.

¶74

10. ANALYSIS/REASONINGS:

¶75

a. JURISDICTION:-

¶76

Sub-section (2) of Section 166 of MV Act, 1988 reads as follows:-

¶77

"(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

¶78

- 10 - NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶79

Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the application."

¶80

Learned counsel for the APSRTC has argued upon the facts that the accident was occurred on 17.12.2008 at Puttaparthy, Andhra Pradesh State. The claimant was working as a Head Master at Puttaparthy and he was a resident of Puttaparthy. The APSRTC bus is carrying on its duties at Andhra Pradesh State. Therefore, on these three facts, it is argued that the MACT, Bengaluru is not having territorial jurisdiction. But the claim petition can be filed by the claimant as per the parameter of subSection (2) of Section 166 of MV Act. The place of residence in which the claimant is residing prior to filing of claim petition means that the claimant is an ordinary resident at that place. In the affidavit evidence, the claimant has given address of Puttaparthy. But, after the accident, the claimant started to reside along with his son

¶81

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶82

at Bengaluru since his son is working at Bengaluru. The

¶83

territorial jurisdiction is a technical aspect.

¶84

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and another reported in 2009 AIR SCW 136 at paragraphs 14 and 17 has held as under:-

¶85

"14. No doubt the Tribunal must exercise jurisdiction having regard to the ingredients laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Act. We are not un-mindful of the fact that in terms of Section 169 of the Act, the Tribunal, subject to any rules, may follow a summary procedure and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure under the Act has a limited application but in terms of the rules 'save and except' any specific provision made in that behalf, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. Even otherwise the principles laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure may be held to be applicable in a case of this nature.

¶86

17. The Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court. An appeal against the Tribunal lies before the High Court. The High Court, while exercising its appellate power, would follow the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure or akin

¶87

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶88

thereto. In view of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the appellate court to pose unto itself the right question, viz., whether the first respondent has been able to show sufferance of any prejudice. If it has not suffered any prejudice or otherwise no failure of justice had occurred, the High Court should not have entertained the appeal on that ground alone."

¶89

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malati

¶90

Sardar vs. National Insurance Company Limited and

¶91

others reported in AIR 2016 SC 247 at paragraphs 12 to 14 has held as under:-

¶92

"12. We are thus of the view that in the face of judgment of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (AIR 2009 SC 1022) (supra), the High Court was not justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal in absence of any failure of justice even if there was merit in the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact remained that the insurance company which was the main contesting respondent had its business at Kolkata.

¶93

13. Reliance placed on decisions of this Court in G. S. Grewal (2014 AIR SCW 4656) and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (AIR 2013 SC 3060) is misplaced. In

¶94

13 -

¶95

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶96

G.S. Grewal, the subject matter of dispute was not covered by the definition of "service matters" under Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and on that ground, it was held that the Armed Forces Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, it was a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Similarly in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat, the claimant before the Consumer Protection Forum was found not be a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and on that ground the order of the consumer forum was held to be without jurisdiction. The said cases did not deal with the issue of territorial jurisdiction.

¶97

14. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (AIR 2009 SC 1022) (supra), contrary view taken by

¶98

14 -

¶99

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶100

the High Court cannot be sustained. The High court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC."

¶101

Even though the claimant has given address of Puttaparthy in affidavit evidence but the fact that the claimant has started to reside along with his son at Bengaluru is not breached. It is evidence of the claimant that presently the claimant is compelled to stay at Bengaluru along with his son, who is working at Bengaluru since he needs assistance for leading day to day activities. Pay slips and certificate of claimant's son which is marked at Ex.P.8 proves that the son of the claimant is residing at Bengaluru and working as Deputy Engineer at Secon Private Limited.

¶102

During the course of cross-examination, the claimant had admitted that his native is Puttaparthy and was working as a Principle in Government Sathya Sai College and after retirement he was working as Head Master at Baba Learning Centre, Puttaparthy and was earning a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimant has also admitted that prior to the accident he was

¶103

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶104

15 -

¶105

residing in Puttaparthy and after the accident he has started to reside at Bengaluru with his son. The claimant was shifted to Columbia Hospital, Bengaluru for treatment. The fact that son of claimant is residing at Bengaluru is not disputed. Hence, the claimant is residing at Bengaluru at the time of filing the claim petition. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the MACT at Benglauru is having territorial jurisdiction in compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 166 of MV Act. The decisions relied on by the APSRTC regarding territorial jurisdiction are not helpful.

¶106

Upon considering the evidence on record, it is found that the claim petition filed by the claimant at MACT, Bengaluru is maintainable and the APSRTC has failed to prove in what aspect the claim petition filed before MACT, Bengaluru has no territorial jurisdiction. As already stated, the aspect of territorial jurisdiction is a technical aspect unless it shows there is failure of substantial justice. The technicality of law shall not be

¶107

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶108

hindrance to give substantial justice. Therefore, this Court does not find merit on canvassing that the MACT, Bengaluru did not have territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, I hold that the MACT, Bengaluru has correctly adjudicated the case with merits and hence, it does not call for interference.

¶109

17. INVOLVEMENT OF THE BUS:

¶110

Learned counsel for the APSRTC submitted that as per the discharge summary of Columbia Hospital, Bengaluru, the history of case is recorded as the patient hit by a lorry.

¶111

Though in the discharge summary it may be recorded that claimant was hit by a lorry, but the fact concerned is that at the time of admission of the claimant to the hospital, there was a situation of trauma. The paramount thing is to put effort to save life of the claimant. As per medical records, the claimant was unconscious. Therefore, regarding the involvement of the APSRTC bus, hospital records along with discharge

¶112

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶113

17 -

¶114

summary and also any other evidences available are to be considered.

¶115

The driver of the APSRTC bus is examined as RW1. In his evidence, he has admitted that the APSRTC bus was involved in the accident and he has also admitted that the incident was reported in Enadu Telugu Newspaper of Ananthpur edition on the next day of the accident reporting that the APSRTC bus has caused accident and claimant had sustained injuries. Considering these two evidences that is, discharge summary of Columbia Hospital, Bengaluru and the evidence of RW1, the evidence of RW1, driver of APSRTC carries more credential than the information written down in the discharge summary. The RW1 himself is an eye witness to the accident and he has admitted that the bus was involved in the accident. Therefore, the evidence of RW1, driver of the bus, itself proved that bus is involved in the accident and in this regard, the Tribunal has correctly appreciated

¶116

18 -

¶117

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶118

the evidence on record and has rightly come to the

¶119

conclusion that APSRTC bus was involved in the accident.

¶120

From the medical evidence on record along with

¶121

the evidence of the doctor, it is proved that claimant had

¶122

suffered following injuries:-

¶123

"Compound depressed fracture of right frontal bone of the skull with brain contusion and Grade-3 compound comminuted fracture dislocation of right knee with bone loss."

¶124

The Tribunal has granted compensation under

¶125

various heads as follows:-

¶126

Pain and sufferings: Rs. 75,000/Medical & hospitalization charges: Rs. 6,00,000/Conveyance, nourishment, etc., Rs. 50,000/Loss of amenities and future Rs. 50,000/happiness: Loss of future income: Rs. 2,52,000/Future medical expenses: Rs. 50,000/- Total: Rs.10,77,000/-

¶127

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by

¶128

the claimant and the compensation awarded under the head 'pain and sufferings' by the Tribunal is found to be correct and the same is kept intact.

¶129

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶130

19 -

¶131

The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- under the head 'Medical Expenses and hospitalization charges'. As per medical bills at Exs.P.11 and 12, the claimant has spent a sum of Rs.5,57,419/towards medical expenses. Further, the claimant has spent a sum of Rs.96,000/- towards physiotherapy. The claimant's son has got reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.5,48,106/- from his employer. The Tribunal has not deducted the said reimbursement from the total 'Medical Expenses and hospitalization charges'.

¶132

By placing reliance of judgment in the case of Shaheed Ahmed vs. Shankaranarayana Bhat reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3277 , the Division Bench of this Court in MFA 8451/2012 c/w MFA No.9190/2012 dated 13.10.2014 held that the judgment in Shaheed Ahmed stated supra is per incuriam . It is observed at para 8 as follows:-

¶133

"We are unable to accept the judgment in the case of SHAHEED AHMED. The question for consideration in HELEN C REBELLO'S case was the

¶134

20 -

¶135

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶136

deduction towards the life insurance policy. The deduction considered by the learned single judge in the case of SHAHEED AHMED was with reference to 'medical expenses'. The deduction of the life insurance policy was considered in depth in the case of HELEN C REBELLO. It was held that a pecuniary advantage received by the claimants out of the life insurance policy would have no correlation to the accidental death for which compensation is computed. That any amount received or receivable not only on account of accidental death, but that would have to come to the claimants even otherwise, could not be construed to be a pecuniary advantage liable for deduction. However, the same principle is not applicable in cases where insurance is taken out on other heads as in this case towards 'medical expenses'. When a policy is taken out for 'medical expenses' the claimant is liable to receive the same under the policy. In a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is entitled for medical expenses. However the very same amount cannot be awarded twice, since the same would amount to a pecuniary benefit. If not, the claimants would receive a double payment on the same head. The distinction in the case of HELEN C REBELLO is with reference to the death which is eminent, for which a policy having been taken, cannot be construed to be a pecuniary advantage, vis-à-vis a pecuniary advantage which a

¶137

21 -

¶138

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶139

claimant would receive on other heads. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the judgment in the case of SHAHEED AHMED, holding the insurance company liable to pay medical expenses even though such medical expenses have been received by the claimants through another policy is an incorrect law. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the judgment in the case of HELEN C. REBELLO as well as in the case of B PARIMALA AND OTHERS have not been rightly construed. We, therefore, hold that the judgment in the case of SHAHEED AHMED is not a good law. The insurance company is not liable to pay the medical expenses to the claimants in a case where the medical expenses are received by the claimants through a medi-claim policy or any other medical policy covering medical expenses."

¶140

The amounts of reimbursement under the life

¶141

insurance coverage and under the general insurance coverage are two different aspects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HELEN C REBELLO VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION reported in 1999 ACJ 10, were pleased to make distinguish between the life insurance coverage and general insurance coverage. The question before the

¶142

22 -

¶143

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶144

Hon'ble Apex Court in HELEN C REBELLO case stated supra is whether life insurance money has to be deducted from the claimant's compensation receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶145

By placing reliance of judgment in the case of British Transport Commissioner vs. Gourley reported in 1955 (3) A11 E.R.796 and other judgments, the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.6950/2007 c/w MFA Nos.6952/2007 and 15422/2007 dated 11.10.2012

¶146

has observed at paragraphs 22 and 23 as follows:-

¶147

"22. In the case on hand, the facts are almost similar. It is not in dispute that in all the claim petitions, the claimants had taken the Mediclaim policies and they have claimed the amount under the policy. We are of the view that the question of the claimants claiming compensation in the claim petitions which is filed under the Act for the amount expended by them for the treatment, certainly cannot be granted. The medical expenses as observed, is classified as a pecuniary loss. Pecuniary loss in its context means that the actual amount, which is expended by the claimant for treatment. If the said amount has

¶148

23 -

¶149

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶150

been paid by the insurer under the Mediclaim policy, the question of the claimant claiming the very same amount for the very same purpose, which is inclusive of the expenses, which are incurred by him for hospitalization and for his treatment does not arise. Undoubtedly, if the amount, which is received by the claimant under the Mediclaim policy falls short of the actual expenses expended by him, it is always open for him to claim the difference of amount spent from the Tribunal. But however, he cannot claim compensation under both the Mediclaim policy as well as the claim petition filed under the Act. The decision of the Apex Court in Hellen C. Rebello's case was in respect of the Life Insurance Policy and not in respect of a Mediclaim policy and therefore the said decision is distinguishable.

¶151

23. Having said so, we are of the view that the amount received by the claimant under the Mediclaim policy is required to be deducted from the total compensation awardable to the claimants under the head medical expenses. Indeed we hasten to add, if the claimant has not received any amount under the Mediclaim policy, the Tribunal is required to access the amount expended by the claimant for the medical expenses and suitably award with reference to the bills produced by them. We also observe that if the amount awarded under

¶152

24 -

¶153

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶154

the Mediclaim policy is much less than the actual amount expended by the claimant towards medical expenses, the shortfall or the balance is also required to be made good by the tort-feasor. Therefore the determination of compensation on the head of medical expenses would in any case have to be made by the Tribunal. In other words, if the amount received under a Mediclaim policy is less than what has been determined by the Tribunal, the former would have to be deducted from the latter. On the other hand, if the amount received under the Mediclaim policy is higher than what is determined by the Tribunal, then no compensation under the head of medical expenses can be awarded by the Tribunal. We hasten to add that any compensation received by the injured claimant on account of an accident policy cannot be deducted from the compensation determined by the Tribunal. Also the determination of compensation on incidental charges is independent of the determination towards medical expenses and has to be paid by the tortfeasor without any reference to a Mediclaim policy that may be obtained by the claimant."

¶155

Therefore, where under the amount is receivable through life insurance policy the said amount

¶156

25 - NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶157

cannot be deducted. This is the principal of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Helen C Rebello stated supra. But the Tribunal has misinterpreted the fact that the medical expenses got reimbursed on any other contract between employer and employee or under the General Insurance Company also can be deducted.

¶158

The object of granting compensation must be just and fair to both the claimant as well as the owner/insurance company and it is not meant for gaining pecuniary advantage that is what is explained in the law laid down in Helen's case. Therefore, once the claimant got reimbursed the medical bills and hospital admission charges from his son's company, then, it cannot be considered while awarding compensation as it amounts to 'double compensation' and leading to pecuniary advantage arising out of the accident. Therefore, this amount ought to have been deducted by the Tribunal while granting compensation. The claimant has obtained a sum of Rs.5,48,106/- from the company through his son.

¶159

26 - NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶160

Therefore, this amount is liable to be deducted while granting compensation under the head 'medical expenses and hospitalization charges'. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in not deducting the amount of Rs.5,48,106/towards medical expenses and hospitalization charges. But at the same time, the claimant was constrained to take physiotherapy and spent Rs.96,000/- towards the same.

¶161

Ex.P9 are the physiotherapy certificates/vouchers issued from Padmashree

¶162

Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru. But the claimant is residing along with his son in Yelahanka. Therefore, learned counsel for APSRTC doubted that the claimant had to travel all the way from Yelahanka to Nagarbhavi for taking physiotherapy treatment which is not possible because of the fact that the distance between Yelahanka to Nagarbhavi is more than 20 kms. This is not a ground to say that the physiotherapist is not able to come to Yelahanka to

¶163

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶164

27 -

¶165

provide treatment to the claimant. It is not disputed fact that due to injuries sustained, the claimant requires physiotherapy treatment. Just because the author of the vouchers/certificates are not examined i.e. on the ground to disbelieve the said vouchers/certificate. The examination of author or authorized signatory of the vouchers/certificates is a mere rule of evidence. In this type of cases, where the evidence are to be considered upon the principle of preponderance of probability, the examination of author of vouchers/certificates is not necessary.

¶166

The claimant had sustained injuries to his right leg. Even after taking treatment in the hospital, the claimant has to undergo physiotherapy treatment which is very much essential and necessary. Therefore, the receipts produced for having taken physiotherapy treatment are to be believed and as such, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.96,000/- as miscellaneous expenses under the head 'future medical treatment'.

¶167

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶168

28 -

¶169

Further, the claimant has undergone surgery for various times and was constrained to admit to the hospital.

¶170

Further, the Tribunal is correct in awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the heads 'loss of amenities' and 'future happiness' considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶171

The claimant after his retirement is working as Principal/Head Master in Baba Learning Centre and earning a remuneration of Rs.15,000/- p.m. It is quite natural that a person who is retired as Principal of Government College can also work as Principal/Head Master/Administrator in any private educational institutions and this is exactly what is done by the claimant herein. Therefore, even after retirement also, the claimant had joined private educational institution and was receiving remuneration of Rs.15,000/- p.m.

¶172

Ex.P21 is the teacher's salary book pertaining to period 2007-2008. Just because the said remuneration is paid by way of cash, that is not a ground to disbelieve

¶173

29 - NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶174

that the claimant is not working as Principal/Head Master in a private institution after his retirement. This has rightly considered by the Tribunal and accordingly granted compensation and also by considering other permissible parameters. As such, the same is hereby kept intact.

¶175

Further, the quantum of compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted under the head 'future medical expenses' is found to be meagre and the same is to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- considering the injuries sustained by the claimant. The other observations and findings of the Tribunal are not disturbed and the same are kept intact.

¶176

Thus, in all the claimant is entitled for

¶177

compensation under various heads as follows:

¶178

SL. NO.	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN.RS.)
1.	Pain and suffering	75,000.00
2.	Future medical treatment charges (physiotherapy treatment)	96,000.00
3.	Conveyance, nourishment,	50,000.00

¶179

30 -

¶180

NC: 2023:KHC:22879 MFA No. 7630 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9034 of 2012

¶181

	etc.
4.	Loss of amenities and future happiness	50,000.00
5.	Loss of future income	2,52,000.00
6.	Future medical expenses	1,00,000.00
	Total	6,23,000.00

¶182

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶183

ORDER

¶184

i. The appeal in MFA No.7630/2012 and in MFA No.9034/2012 are allowed-in-part .

¶185

ii. The common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 8159/2009 dated 17.04.2012 is hereby modified holding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,23,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶186