The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that only amounts payable to the claimant by reason of death or injury in an accident are liable to be deducted from the compensation, emphasizing the need for correlation between the amount received and the accidental death or injury to determine the deductibility of the amounts.

G. P. Mittal, J.

1. These two Appeals (MAC APP. No.346/2010 and MAC APP. No.279/2011) arise out of a judgment dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.3,03,883/-along with interest @ 8% per annum was awarded in favour of R.K. Jain who suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 21.07.1999.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Appellant in MAC APP. No.346/2010) shall be referred to as the Insurance Company, whereas the Cross-Objectionist (MAC APP. No.279/2011) shall be referred to as the Claimant.

3. On 21.07.1999, the Claimant was driving down his car No.DL-3CG-4426 from Bharatpur to Delhi. A truck No.RJ-25G-0104 while being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the Second Respondent hit the Claimant’s car from behind; as a result of the forceful impact windscreen of the Claimant’s car broke into pieces. Some of the screen pallets pierced on to the face and other parts of the Claimant’s body. After getting first aid in Bharatpur, the Claimant was shifted to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. He remained admitted there from 22.07.1999 to 26.07.1999 and an outdoor patient till 29.08.1999. The Claimant also remained under treatment of Dr. Atul Singh, an Ophthalmologist and one Dr. S. Chauhan.

4. On appreciation of the evidence, the Claims Tribunal opined that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the Respondent No.2. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,03,883/-, which is tabulated hereunder:

5. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company:

Sl.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Pain and Suffering Rs.20,000/-Medical Expenses Rs.1,24,025/-Disfigurement Rs.50,000/-Special Diet and Conveyance Rs.10,000/-Loss of Salary Rs.99,858/-TOTAL Rs.3,03,883/-

(i) A sum of Rs.1,24,025/-was paid by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (UIIC) against the mediclaim and personal accident policies taken by the Claimant. This sum was required to be deducted while awarding the compensation, otherwise this would amount to double payment to the Claimant;

(ii) No deduction towards Income Tax was made in the sum of Rs.99,858/-which was awarded towards loss of leave for seventeen days.

6. On the other hand the grounds set up by the Claimant are that he had suffered permanent disability in his left eye on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. The Claimant was, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs.32,77,800/-on account of loss of his future earning capacity. It is contended that a sum of Rs.1,24,025/-was paid on account of contract of insurance with UIIC in pursuance of two separate contracts of insurance (mediclaim policy and a personal accident policy). The Appellant Insurance Company was not entitled to gain any benefit because of the contract of insurance between the Claimant and the UIIC. The amount of Rs.1,24,025/-was, therefore, not liable to be deducted from the compensation awarded.

7. I shall be dealing with the submissions one by one.

WHETHER AMOUNT REIMBURSED BY UIIC IS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COMPENSATION AWARDED:

8. A learned Single Judge of this Court in JaswantKaur Sethi v. Tamal Das & Ors., MAC. APP. No. 352/2006 decided on 26.10.2009, Udam Singh Sethi v. Tamal Das and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ganapat Rai Sehgal, MAC APP. No.191/2000 decided on 03.01.2012 following the Supreme Court judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 281 held that the Claimant is not entitled to be paid medical expenditure reimbursed under the mediclaim policy as this would amount to double payment to the Claimant/victim.

9. The learned counsel for the Claimant argues that the judgment of this Court in JaswantKaur Sethi (supra) and other decisions referred to earlier require reconsideration as the judgment in Helen C. Rebell