Skip to main content

Reimbursement from Mediclaim policy cannot be deducted from the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

In FIRST APPEAL NO. 1620 OF 2012, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr.Ajit Chandrakant Rakvi, the Bombay High Court bench of Justice N.J.Jamadar was hearing an appeal filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the grounds among others that the amount towards medical claim reimbursed should not have been taken into consideration while calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act as such amounts would result in a double benefit to the claimant. The Appellant asserted that the Tribunal had awarded the compensation under the medical head in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the same. 

The court referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello Vs. MSRTC AIR 1998 SC 3191 which stated that the amount received by the claimant on the life insurance of the deceased is not deductible from the compensation computed under the Act, the Tribunal held that the said principle applied even to the personal injury claim and thus did not allow the deduction. Further reference was made to various other judgments Vrajesh Navnitlal Desai Vs. K. Bagyam & Ors. 2006 ACH 65 (BOM.), Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corporation Vs. Priyank Manu/MP/0436/1999, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anjana W/o. Nileshkumar Parmar & Anr. 2012(3) Mh.L.J. 914 and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine Cal. 10368. The Bench accordingly dismissed the appeal whilst observing that from this stand point, in the context of the distinction between the contractual liability under the contract of insurance (medical) and the statutory liability under the Act, the aforesaid proposition, not to deduct the amount of reimbursement received, under a mediclaim policy, appears to be in consonance with the principle of beneficial interpretation and advances the object of the Act.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more