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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more