Medical expenses remain compensable in motor accident claims despite reimbursement under health insurance.

The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 3 December 2022, allegedly caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Tata Ace.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹3,35,000 under various heads, including pain and suffering, attendant and conveyance charges, loss of amenities, and loss of income during the laid-up period.

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement in light of the claimant’s injuries, disability, and the evidence of medical expenditure.

2. Whether medical expenses could be awarded where the claimant may have obtained reimbursement under a health insurance policy.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

In assessing compensation, the Court used the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s notional-income figure of ₹15,500 per month for 2022 and applied a multiplier of 9, having regard to the claimant’s age of 57 at the time of the accident.

For the disability assessment, it treated one-third of the lower-limb disability as whole-body disability and added the separately assessed whole-body disability arising from the rib fractures.

The judgment cites no precedent.

The Court found the existing awards for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and attendant and conveyance expenses reasonable in view of the claimant’s injuries and 11-day hospital admission.

It increased the laid-up-period award to ₹93,000 by applying the revised monthly income of ₹15,500 for six months.

It allowed ₹1,23,460 in medical expenses supported by bills and prescriptions, holding that possible reimbursement under health insurance did not justify denying those expenses.

Applying the multiplier and disability findings, the Court assessed loss of future income at ₹2,67,840 and recalculated the total compensation at ₹7,29,300.

It directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within six weeks and permitted the claimant to withdraw the entire enhancement.

The judgment contains an apparent discrepancy: its calculation gives total compensation of ₹7,29,300 against the Tribunal’s ₹3,35,000 award—a difference of ₹3,94,300—while the operative order specifies enhanced compensation of ₹3,94,000.