Motor Accident Compensation Not 'Bonanza'; Claimants Can't Recover Medical Expense Borne By Charity: Gujarat High Court
While considering plea seeking enhancement of compensation to the kin of the deceased who died after an accident, the Gujarat High Court recently observed that compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act is not a "bonanza or a jackpot".
The court was hearing an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of appellants and awarded compensation of Rs.41,05,240 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.
The deceased alongwiith his friend was going to Balotara for watching Horse Fair in a car driven by original opponent No.1 and when they were passing opposite IOC, Siddhpur-Palanpur Highway road, at that time, one bus came from service road to main road due to which driver of the car applied the sudden brake and lost control over steering.
As a result of which the car turtled wherein the deceased sustained serious multiple fractures on head and other injuries on various parts of body. The deceased was taken to government hospital, Siddhpur, Patan where treatment went on upto 03.06.2011.The deceased died on 28.02.2012 during his treatment at home.
The appellants herein – legal heirs and representatives of deceased filed the claim petition and Tribunal after appreciating the evidence awarded the compensation. Being aggrieved with quantum of compensation, the appellants moved the high court in appeal.
The appellants had argued that Tribunal did not consider the medical expenses which were incurred by one Shantaben Atmaramdas Patel Charitable Trust on behalf of the deceased. Meanwhile the Insurance Company's counsel Kirti Pathak argued that the Trust has already paid the amount and even if said fact is accepted, the Trust has not claimed the amount spent by it towards medical expenses of the deceased. Therefore, once the claimants have received the amount from the Trust, in absence of any evidence, the claimants owe the amount to the Trust and therefore, question to consider the amount in the compensation awarded does not arise.
On the appellants claim over the amount paid by the trust, the Justice Hasmukh D Suthar said:
"So far as claim of claimants to award Rs.10,86,415/- which was paid by Shantaben Atmaramdas Patel Charitable Trust on behalf of the deceased is concerned, the said amount is to be paid to the said Trust however, there is no evidence in this regard and even otherwise the claimants owe the said amount to the said Trust and therefore, the claimants are not entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.10,86,415/- more particularly in view of the fact that compensation under the MV Act is not a bonanza or a jackpot and once expenses are incurred, original claimants are not entitled to receive the said amount".
With respect to the other claims the court noted that the tribunal had taken into consideration the fact that the deceased was admitted in Sterling Hospital, Ahmedabad and expenditure was Rs.16,27,865, out of which Rs.1 Lakh was reimbursed to the claimants by way of medical claim and Rs.10,86,415 is paid by Shantaben Atmaramdas Patel Charitable Trust.
The court however noted that certain bills had not been considered by the tribunal and said:
"The deceased came to be discharged from the Sterling Hospital on 23.06.2011 and expenditure sheet produced at Exh.71 demonstrates that medical bills amounting to Rs.2,52,899/- are dated 23.06.2011 and thereafter and hence, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the said bills. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,52,899/- towards medical bills. Further, the claimants have relied on Exh.72 for claiming compensation under the head of attendant and transportation charges but perusing the record it appears that some bills at Exh.72 are duplicate and of overlapping dates of aforesaid time each of Rs.12,000/- and even otherwise, under the head of pain, shock and suffering, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,94,100/- and hence, this Court is not inclined to accept the said document produced at Exh.72 as a gospel truth and as it is".
The court however awarded lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000 "towards attendant and transporation charge". Further it said that the deceased was having four dependants and the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.44,000 towards loss of consortium. In view of Supreme Court's decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s Pranay Shethi (2017), the court said the claimants are entitled to get Rs.1,93,600 (Rs.48,400 x 4) towards loss of consortium.
It thus modified the tribunal's order and enhanced the compensation to Rs.45,57,739 (enhancing amounts for Loss of consortium, Medical Expenditure and Attendant & transportation charges)
The appeal was partly allowed.
Case title: LH OF DECD NILESHBHAI MAHENDRABHAI VASANT v/s JIGAR BABUBHAI SHAH & ANR.
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1743 of 2022
Counsel for Appellant: Advocate Vishal C Mehta
Counsel for Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company: Advocate Kirti S Pathak