Sri Binup Kumar R @ Binup vs Mr Prabhakar H G on 20 February, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 6]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Binup Kumar R @ Binup vs Mr Prabhakar H G on 20 February, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2010 (4) AIR KAR R 829

Bench: V.Jagannathan

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 20th day of February 2009
:BEFORE: "'

THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'i'ICE : v.JAGANNAT£{5:q%%
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA_L..NQ. 3:317' ;Li[29{36%;:x4vg)%' _

BETWEEN I

Sri Binup Kumar R @ _
Aged about 20 years, V' _
S/0 Sri M.Radhakrish:(1an Nair, "
R'/0 K.Na1'ayanapuI"a'.,.4_Nextf1:0 3. . ~
Christha Jayanthi Coliegét, h " -.
Kothanur Post,__Bang;aJ,mfc-.560 '_'7'7'.'; 1» ..
i " Advocate. )
1. vMr.'*Pra1:$h a'«V:'i:§»§r,. ; "
Aggz "Majo1f_,'S.)'--n H_,_P;Gurappa Raddy,
R/ O L Doddanekkuzxdi,

; ' Village 85 Post,
" ' Bgzﬁgalore' 037 .

' " M Insurance Co. Ltd,

«AB-I:'$3.Ex1Cht"€3ﬂ'iCe: Near (Samara Bank,
Marzijihéxtaalli, Bangalore-560 (337,
. répresented by its Divisionai

~~M'a;2nager.
" . . .Responder1ts

( By Sri. H.S.Lingarm, Advocate for R-2. )

Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section

173(1) cf the M.V.Act against the judment and award

dated 26.10.2305 passed in MVC No. 797/2095 'On the

fiie of the Member, MACT, Mayo Han Unit,

Area, Bangalore (SCCH-20), partly ailczwiiiig the

petition for compensation and bf

compensation.

This appeal coming hear} Tﬁfzisvvfgday, the

court delivered the fdﬁsi*':in§ : "
'

The éiscidcnt and suﬁereci
fracture or deglsving injury to the lateral
side of 'isfi amderiying tissues and the

~ p¢u't:4i.Vc:3:1, "by? him was ailowed by awarding

sR$j,A'1,%4éj50§s;--. Not being. satisfied with the said

A is before this court.

lgséamed counsel Shri R.K.rishna Raddy for the

"ii submittsd that the 'I'ribuna1 committed an

t K simr in not awaxtiizxg the amount which was paid under

me Mediciaim Policy and, therefore, the said amount of

Rs.50,0()0/ - which the appellant had received under the

Mediclaim Policy also ought to have been ﬁver; _by the

Tribmiai and secondly, the amount is on tht:iV:':$if1.V:i;314e

lower side under the heads of futurc:

and loss of amenities of life and: he:é.;1« "

of pain and suﬁerhig. In $upp§Srt_ ntJh(i'::

regards the Tribunal not awsgzﬁmg {I143

by the claimant undr::r~.fd:1e A?»/1'£43(i.i'Vr::§s;i:1"31._Po3L«'ii(i3'f'," 1:11;: learned
counsei placed reiiandé the case of
Shaheed Bhat, reported

in 11,5' 200$ V

3. ZQH ieamed counsel Shri

H.S.Li13g%Ljaj _f<$r_ ﬁjépondent Insurance Company

A' cogiﬁiséiiiieci t}i¢":1i;'--v':.I1_§§"'fI7I'ib11na1 was jmstjﬁcd in not taking

'i I'1'toV &1§:<':{;~"s..1ﬁ:ti1e amount already received by the

% the Mediclaim Policy and there is 110

pro4§ri3i1Cq._1.Vt;or double payment being made under the

V' head. it is submitted that just as in the case of

Govezxxment servants who are tmtitieti to mjmbursement

of medical expensas and the amount that is reimbursed

to the Govermuent sezvagnts is deducted ﬁom out of the

ainolmt actually assessed by the Tﬁbmlal and. on the

,%/~»

4
same lines, the 'I'ribunai, in the instant Case aiso, has

rightly disallowed the amount which was paidie the

claimant under the Mcdielaim Policy. A,saiiiésii§:ii;ie;i E119

interference is called for in respect of V'

awaxded by the Tribunal.

4. in the light of the abgve sﬁbeeiesienev i1:)I'ii;*'.éiIxi,"'~ *'

the question is Whether in
disallowing the ethe under
the Mediciaim Ef'_oiicy. ... 1

5. Haviligi cited by the
learned am of the View that
no the same advantage
twice. the claimant has received

Rs:§30;0QQj tlie Medieiaim Poﬁey and the balance

'V 'the medical expenses incurred by him is

A Txihuxiai, the net eﬁeei: is that, whatever

incurred by the e!aima:n' t has been paid

to If the argument of the appeilanﬂs counsel is to

éieeepteﬁ and if the amount received under the

Wiviediciaim Poiicy is to be ignored, then the situation that

Weuld arise will be, the claimant would be getting double payment and though the actual Hie-dical expenses incurred, for exampie, is Rs. the claimant would be getting mneﬁt of which cannot be permitted principles appiieable to theevassesézptent of: L' under vaxious heads. V V V

6. To draw an of e GeveI'I1ment servazxt, whatevfer servant gets said amount Wiil be deducteti arrfwed at by the be paid to mm. on the tile amount the claimant gets frongl' iike Mediciaim etc, the said amount be deducted while assessing the actual to the claim' ant. Therefore, I am un}ab1e..':te'v%rst:xade myself tr) agree with the eenterition V. piit4_fGIV§V.erd by the learned counsel for the appeiiant and "tee 'eettied txosiﬁon in law is that the actual amount that incurred or the amount that is actually spent for treatment by the claimant alone will have to be awarded % by the Tribunal. Under the said cineumstanues, the Tribuna} was jusﬁﬁed in taksing note of the ajxtount already received by the appellant under the Policy.

7. As far as the other heads-'3;i'e-t:oIi2ce1t':"1§I*:t£,_ there is ' justification to increase the egmpensaﬁon . aw.2ﬁ*ded_V under the head 0f pain and towards future at f1irti'Ier' sum of Rs.8,000/- is awardett head of loss of amenities of; '1vt),00O/-- needs to be awmdee. ioss of future earning eapaejitjtye of the disability '»;t'1*ibuna1 being far too low, the 'tots eﬁhanced by awarding a further sum' V.0f'ti%s'I3A2.0Oi3W/L';A .8.' total increase in the compensation will be /~» out cf which, Rs.8,0{)0/-- towards future A 5_" tﬁ&a1%_;n1ent shall not carry any intereet and the rest of the t éégtnaunt W13} carry interest at 6%. The enhanced % amount be paid to the claimant. The appeal stands allowed in part thus. 1 T .4 ckc/' -

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court