Compensation under MV Act not ‘bonanza’ or ‘jackpot’, Gujarat High Court refuses medical bills paid by trust

Justice Suthar of the Gujarat High Court observed that there was no evidence to show that the claimants were entitled to receive that amount themselves. (Image enhanced using AI)

Background

The appeal originated from a road accident that occurred on April 1, 2011 in which a man died.

He, along with his friend, was travelling by car to Balotara to watch a horse fair.

The car overturned, resulting in the deceased sustaining serious multiple injuries, including fractures to the head and other parts of the body.

Following the accident, the deceased was taken to a government hospital at Siddhpur, Patan, where he underwent treatment until June 3, 2011.

He was subsequently treated at Sterling Hospital, Ahmedabad, and thereafter continued medical care at home. Despite prolonged treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on February 28, 2012.

The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the MACT.

By its award dated May 6, 2021, the tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded compensation of Rs 41,05,240 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimants preferred an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement.

Observations

Emphasising the object of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the court stated that once expenses have already been incurred and paid by a third party, the claimants cannot seek to receive that amount again.

The court rejected the claim for inclusion of Rs 10,86,415 paid by the charitable trust.

However, it partly allowed the appeal enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) from Rs 41.05 lakh to Rs 45.57 lakh.

Justice Suthar observed that there was no evidence to show that the claimants were entitled to receive that amount themselves and, in any case, they would owe the same to the trust.

The court, after examining the record, noted that the appeal was confined only to the issue of quantum of compensation, as negligence and liability were not in dispute.

It observed that while the tribunal had considered the expenditure incurred during the deceased’s admission at Sterling Hospital, it had overlooked medical bills amounting to Rs 2,52,899 that were dated after the discharge on June 23, 2011.

Holding this to be an error, the court ruled that the claimants were entitled to this additional amount towards medical expenses.

On the claim relating to attendant and transportation charges, the court found that several bills produced by the claimants were either duplicate or overlapping.

The judge declined to accept those documents “as a gospel truth”, but nonetheless awarded a lump sum of Rs 50,000 under this head.

The court also took note of the fact that the deceased had four dependants.

It found that the tribunal had awarded only Rs 44,000 towards loss of consortium, which was inadequate in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Applying the principles laid down in that decision, the high court enhanced the amount payable towards loss of consortium to Rs 1,93,600 (Rs 48,400 for each dependant).

The court modified the tribunal’s award and enhanced the total compensation to Rs 45,57,739, while maintaining the interest rate of 7.5% per annum.

The appeal was accordingly partly allowed, with directions to the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks.

Arguments

Advocate Vishal Mehta, appearing for the appellants, argued that the tribunal had failed to award just and proper compensation by ignoring several heads of claim.

He contended that the tribunal did not take into account medical bills including expenses incurred after the deceased was discharged from Sterling Hospital.

The appellants also claimed that the tribunal erred in not awarding adequate compensation towards attendant and transportation charges, despite documentary evidence being placed on record.

A major plank of the appellants’ case was that the tribunal should have included medical expenses amounting to Rs 10,86,415 which were paid on behalf of the deceased by Shantaben Atmaramdas Patel Charitable Trust.

According to the appellants, these expenses were legitimately incurred for the treatment of the deceased and ought to have been reflected in the compensation.

Opposing the appeal, advocate Kirti Pathak, counsel for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence and that no further enhancement was warranted.

With respect to the amount paid by the charitable trust, it was argued that the trust itself had not raised any claim for reimbursement and that, once the claimants had already received the benefit of those payments, they could not seek to include the same amount again as compensation.

It was further submitted that some of the bills relied upon by the claimants were either duplicate or overlapped in dates, justifying the tribunal’s decision to ignore them.