Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:-

CM-10069-CII-2013:

1. Prayer in this civil miscellaneous application is for condonation of delay of 63 days in filing the appeal.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present civil miscellaneous application is allowed and the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-2119-2013:

3. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 30.8.2012, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), whereby a sum of Rs. 2,77,440/- (Rupees two lacs seventy-seven thousand four hundred and forty only) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization was awarded in favour of the appellant-claimant and respondent No. 3 was directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimant with a further rider that the insurance company could recover the awarded amount from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) in accordance with law. Learned Tribunal further directed that 50% of the amount of compensation would be deposited for three years in the fixed deposit account in a nationalized bank in the name of the appellant/claimant and remaining 50% shall be paid in cash to him.

4. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant submits that learned Tribunal should have assessed the monthly income of the appellant/injured at the rate of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month; learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for transport charges; a meagre sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) has been awarded for nutritious diet; and that interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was also on lower side. Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that learned Tribunal has wrongly declined the claim of Rs. 1,61,692/- (Rupees one lac sixty-one thousand six hundred and ninety-two) to the claimant, which was straightway paid by the insurance company to Paras Hospital, Gurgaon, where the appellant/claimant remained admitted as an Indoor patient. To elaborate his last contention, learned counsel submitted that the appellant/claimant after paying premium got mediclaim policy from the Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal has gone wrong in deducting the said amount from the award to which the appellant/claimant was entitled to. In support of his last contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Shaheed Ahmed v. Shankaranarayana Bhat and another, 2008 (5) Air Kar R 460 and a judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bijumon, 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 325.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate, has put in appearance for respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company and submits that he has instructions to argue the matter. He submits that as per the ratio of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, the amount straightway paid to Paras Hospital, Gurgaon, by the Insurance Company, which had insured the claimant for medical reimbursement, could not be deducted from the amount to which the appellant/claimant was entitled to. He further submitted that learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the monthly income @ Rs.9,430/- (Rupees nine thousand four hundred and thirty). He further pointed out that as per the material available on record, the appellant/claimant was residing at Gurgaon and Paras Hospital where he remained admitted for his treatment was also located in Gurgaon and, as such, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) awarded by learned Tribunal for transport charges is justified. It was also pointed out that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) has been awarded for nutritious diet and there is no scope for enhancement under the said head. He further pointed out that learned Tribunal has granted appropriate interest @ 7.5% per annum and there is no scope for further en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document