The responsibility of the insurance company to reimburse incurred expenses and pay for injuries suffered, and the court's authority to enhance compensation based on legal precedents.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

1. Both these appeals seek to question the computation of compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) as awarded by judgment dated 13.03.2014 on claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) registered as Suit No.64/2010. The claim case was presented by Nihal Chand Gupta and Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta (collectively, the claimants) on account of death in motor vehicular accident of Kamla at about 10 AM on 28.08.2007 near Police picket, Sector-A, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi involving Maruti car bearing registration No.DL 3C AW 3175 (the offending vehicle) which concededly was insured against third party risk with National Insurance Company Ltd. (the insurer).

2. While the insurer brought appeal (MAC.APP.1116/2012) mainly to question the award of medical expenses in the sum of Rs.30,76,000/- and the deduction on account of personal and living expenses restricted to the extent of 1/3rd in calculation of loss of dependency, the claimants by way of their appeal (MAC.APP.812/2014) seek enhancement on the non-pecuniary heads of loss of love and affection and loss of consortium stating that the amounts of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- each on that account are deficient.

3. Having heard both sides, the two appeals are being disposed of through this common judgment.

4. The Tribunal has noted the following facts in (para 17 of) the impugned judgment, which are relevant for purposes of considering the objection to the award of medical expenses:

“17. PW1 has stated that after the accident, Smt. Kamla Devi was removed to ISIC, Vasant Kunj in unconscious condition where her MLC Ex.PW1/44 was prepared. He stated that the condition of the deceased remained critical throughout her treatment lasting for a period of 13 months. She never regained consciousness despite extensive medication. She died on 26.09.08. He stated that about Rs. 30 lakhs were incurred on her medication. The hospital had given him a consolidated bill of Rs.26,30,676.98 out of which he had paid Rs. 5,30,000/-. Balance amount remained outstanding. He placed on record the bills and the cash receipts Ex.PW1/48 to 64 and stated that in addition, local purchase of medicines was made and an expenditure was incurred on other items amounting to Rs.3,25,436.42 which were paid in cash vide receipts Ex.PW1/65-236. He stated that his wife was educated, robust and strong. She was an active member of Rashtriya Ekta Nirman Samiti. He filed the identity card of deceased Ex.PWl/237. PW-2 brought the treatment record of the deceased and stated that she remained admitted from 28.08.07 till her death i.e. 26.09.08. During her treatment the hospital charged a sum of Rs.26,30,676.98 out of which Rs. 5,30,000/- were deposited and the remaining amount is still to be paid by the family of the deceased. R3W1 is the Manager Accounts of ISIC Centre, Vasant Kunj. He also deposed on the lines of PW2 and gave the complete break-up of original payment summary EX.R3W1/1 (colly.). He stated that in the balance sheet and books of accounts of the hospital, outstanding payment is reflected. In the instant case, PW-1 has given an affidavit that on 05.12.11 he has received a notice of the suit for recovery of Rs.28,56,920.69 alongwith pendelite interest and future interest U/o 37 CPC in respect of the outstanding dues of Rs.21,00,676.98. He stated that he undertakes to settle the payment in the Court.”

5. The claimants have shown, by documentary proof, that civil suit (original side) No.2656/2011 was preferred against them by Indian Spinal Injuries Centre (ISIC) under order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) pressing for recovery of the outstanding medical bill. The said civil suit has since been transferred to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi by order dated 04.12.2015 of Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on account of change of the pecuniary jurisdiction.

6. The fact remains that the medical treatment of the victim Kamla Dev