In a couple of appeals filed before the Karnataka High Court against an order dated 13-03-2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (MACT), a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha enhanced the claimant’s compensation and dismissed the appeal by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC).
One of the appellants, KSRTC submitted that the dispute was in respect of the medical bills produced by the claimant as the bill issued by Apollo BGS Hospital for a sum of Rs. 2,21,507/- there was a clear mention that the bill was issued at the request of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. It was contended that similarly even in the bills issued by Fortis Hospital, there was a mention of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
It was stated that PW-1’s husband was working in a Broadcom Company at Bangalore and that she was not aware if her husband had claimed reimbursement of the medical bills from the company in which he was working. Opposing this, the claimant submitted that even if KSRTC’s contention is accepted, the amount spent on payment of premiums came back to his family by way of medical reimbursement and hence, the claimant had not obtained any extra financial benefit from ICICI Lombard, which is why no amount can be deducted out of the amount awarded towards medical expenses.
The Court noted that a policy to cover the risk either due to the reason of injury sustained or health ailments or death will only be on payment of premium fixed which had to be paid wither at one time or through regular intervals. Hence, the Court held that the payments made by the claimant or anyone covering the claimant’s risk, helped the claimant in the form of getting back the amount spent towards medical expenditure. However, the Court said, this did not mean that the wrongdoer or the employer of the wrongdoer who is liable to compensate, can escape from liability by taking a plea that payments were made by the insurer from whom a policy was obtained to cover the risk.
The Court held that even though the claimant received the amount spent for treatment from the insurer, such tangible benefit could not estop the claimant from claiming the amount spent for treatment from insurer or owner of offending vehicle. It was held that such claim could not be termed to be double benefit.
In the claimant’s appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation, it was contended that the claimant had a Master’s Degree in Biotechnology and that she worked as a Guest Lecturer at a college from August 2012 to March 2013 where she received a sum of Rs. 35,000/- per month as salary. KSRTC submitted that the accident occurred in October 2013 and that there was no evidence to show that she was working on the date of the accident.
The Court said that every woman who renders services to her family members at home is liable to be regarded as a ‘Homemaker’ irrespective of the fact that the woman holds a higher qualification. It was opined that even a working woman or a professional can be considered to be a homemaker so long as such woman renders services at home and takes care of the family members. The Court stated that establishing that a woman stays home 24×7, is illiterate, or attends only household chores are not necessary to consider a woman as homemaker. It was stated that the word ‘homemaker’ is gender-neutral and held that the claimant could be considered to be a homemaker in the present case.
The Court considered that the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority was taking the notional income for the relevant period as Rs. 8000/- per month, and found it appropriate to take the same notional income for the claimant. Noting the nature of the injuries, the Court found that the claimant would not have been able to provide services to her family for 3 months, and held that the total sum which she was entitled to receive in addition to the sum awarded by the MACT was Rs. 1,96,800/-.
Thus, the compensation was enhanced and interest at 6% per annum was levied. KSRTC was directed to deposit the enhanced sum within 8 weeks.
