Karnataka HC Adds Back Rs 1.5 Lakh Medical-Insurance Payout, Raises Injured Road-Crash Victim’s Award To Rs 9.55 Lakh

In brief

The question

Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation, including restoration of the ₹1,50,000 deducted from medical expenses because it had been reimbursed under his medical insurance.

The court held

The Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation from ₹7,85,650 to ₹9,55,650.

It also directed

The enhanced compensation carries interest at 6% per annum from the petition date until realization, except for the delayed period of 422 days.

Respondents 2 and 4 were directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the certified judgment; disbursement and deposit remain subject to the Tribunal’s order.

01Facts

The appellant, an occupant of a Maruti Alto car, sustained injuries in a road accident involving that car, a Maruti Omni car and a motorcycle on 7 August 2016.

pp. 3–5

He sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

pp. 3–5

The Tribunal attributed the accident to the Alto driver’s negligence and awarded him ₹7,85,650, including ₹3,40,650 for medical bills.

pp. 3–5, 9

It had excluded ₹1,50,000 in medical expenses reimbursed through the claimant’s medical insurance.

pp. 3–5, 9

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement.

p. 6

02Issues

i.Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation, including restoration of the ₹1,50,000 deducted from medical expenses because it had been reimbursed under his medical insurance.

p. 6 · ¶ 13, 19–22

03Law Applied

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal, while Section 166 provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident.

p. 3

Relying on New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 504, the Court applied the rule that benefits received under a medical-insurance contract cannot be deducted from compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act: medical insurance is contractual and funded by premiums, whereas motor-accident compensation is a statutory entitlement.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 21–22

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court left undisturbed the Tribunal’s assessment of 15% whole-body disability and its calculation of loss of future earnings, as well as the awards for pain and suffering, attendant and nourishment charges, future medical expenses and medical bills apart from the disputed deduction.

pp. 7–9 · ¶ 17–18

It found the existing ₹20,000 award for loss of income during the laid-up period inadequate given the claimant’s fracture of a major bone and need for at least three months’ rest, and increased it to ₹30,000.

p. 8 · ¶ 18

It also increased loss of amenities from ₹20,000 to ₹30,000.

p. 8 · ¶ 18

Applying Dolly Satish Gandhi, the Court held that the ₹1,50,000 medical-insurance reimbursement could not be deducted and restored that amount to the medical-bills award.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 19–22