A claimant who has been reimbursed for medical expenditure through a mediclaim policy will not be entitled to claim reimbursement under the same head from the insurer of the offending vehicle in a claim filed under the Motor Vehicles Act.

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant impugns the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), whereby the Respondent No.1 (Petitioner in Suit No. 217/08) was granted a compensation of Rs.3,51,270/- due to the injuries i.e. Facture proximal tibia left (Schatzker – VI) with fracture pilon right fracture bimalleolar, caused to him on account of a road accident.

2. On 07.04.2006, the Respondent No.1 and Sudhershan Arora (Petitioner in Suit No.224/08) were walking together; when they were crossing the Outer Ring Road, A&B Block, Meera Bagh, Delhi, a car bearing No. DL-4-C-AG-1583 hit them due to which they fell on the road and got injured. The Appellant herein, have preferred to file an appeal in Suit No.217/08.

3. The main contention of the Appellant is that the Respondent No.1 (Claimant- PW3) admitted to have received Rs.1,43,921 from his medi-claim policy, while deposing before the Tribunal. Therefore, in view of this admission he was not entitled to receive any reimbursement from the insurer of the offending vehicle for the expenditure he incurred for the medical treatment, which he underwent due to the accident.

4. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan (2002) 6 SCC 281, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“24. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee submitted that while assessing the amount of compensation, the benefits which have accrued to the claimants by reason of death must also be taken into account. A kind of balancing of losses and the gains or benefit by reason of death would be necessary. In support of the above contention, he has referred to the decision in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami AIR 1962 SC 1. It is a decision by a three-Judge Bench of this Court, and at SCR p. 938 the observations made by the House of Lords in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., 1942 AC 601 (AC p.601) has been quoted which read as follows:-

“The general rule which has always prevailed in regard to the assessment of damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts is well settled, namely, that any benefit accruing to a dependant by reason of the relevant death must be taken into account. Under those Acts the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained, the position of each dependant being considered separately.”

25. To further elaborate the above proposition, observations made by Lord Wright in Davies case (supra) have also been quoted. They read as follows:

“The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or benefit reducible to money value. In assessing the damages all circumstances which may be legitimately placed in diminution of the damages must be considered. The actual pecuniary, loss of each individual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing, on the one hand, the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and on the other, any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death.”

The learned Counsel laid stress on the last part of observation made to the effect that - for the purposes of balancing losses and gains any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source come to them, has to be considered.

26. It is submitted in Gobald's case (supra) the principle of Davies Case (supra) was referred and taken into consideration. Reliance has also been placed on a decision in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transport Insurance Company, (1971) 1 SCC 785, particularly to the observations made by the Court in paragraph 6 of the judgment where the principle in the case of Gobald Motors (supra) has been reiterated. In this connection learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has also drawn our attention to the decision in the case of Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176, particularly on paragraph 8 of the report, where it is observed that the principle in the case of Davies v. Powell was adopted, in the case of Gobald Motors (supra). It is thus submitted that princip