Victim entitled to relief under MV Act even after using mediclaim: HC

Says a person contributes their own salary towards life insurance policies. Hence, it has no concern with the motor accident claim, and has to be assessed separately.

The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that any reimbursement claimed through health insurance after an accident cannot be deducted from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, to be paid by the insurance firm of the offending vehicle.

Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited had challenged the compensation stating that medical expenses of ₹97,000 were reimbursed to the victim under a health insurance policy, and therefore, she was not entitled to claim reimbursement under the same head from the car’s insurer. (iStockphoto)

The high court (HC) bench of justice Ritu Bahri dismissed an appeal by insurance firm, Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited, which had challenged a decision by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Chandigarh, to award ₹97,000 as medical expenses, an amount that the victim had got under her health insurance policy as well.

The bench observed that a person contributed their own salary towards life insurance policies, and the payment was received finally when the policy matured. “It has no concern with the motor accident claim. Compensation has to be assessed separately under the Motor Vehicles Act,” it added.

2014 ACCIDENT

The victim, Meenakshi Mann, a private school teacher, was going from her house in Sector 47 to Sector 35 while riding pillion on a motorcycle being driven by her husband, Mandeep Singh, on May 25, 2014.

They met with an accident involving a car in Sector 34, causing multiple injuries to Mann, which led to 25% permanent disability in her leg. Consequently, the accident tribunal had awarded her ₹15.99 lakh to paid by the car’s insurer.

INSURER’S CONTENTION

The insurance firm had challenged the compensation stating that medical expenses of ₹97,000 were reimbursed to Mann under a health insurance policy, and therefore, she was not entitled to claim reimbursement under the same head from the car’s insurer. It also argued that loss of salary due to the accident was “merely ₹3,000 per month” and compensation had been awarded on a higher side.

Mann’s lawyer Ashwani Arora had argued that compensation under the MV Act was statutory and had no correlation with the insurance claim. It was further argued that the woman was a private school teacher and the compensation was assessed as per norms.