BINUP KUMAR R Vs. PRABHAKAR H G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The appellant met with an accident and suffered fracture of left femur and degloving injury to the lateral side of left ankle exposing underlying tissues and the claim petition filed by him was allowed by awarding Rs. 1,47,500. Not being satisfied with the said quantum, the claimant is before this court.

(2.) THE learned counsel Mr. R. Krishna Reddy for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding the amount which was paid under the Mediclaim Policy and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 50,000 which the appellant had received under the Mediclaim Policy also ought to have been given by Tribunal and secondly, the amount is on the lower side under the heads of future medical expenses and loss of amenities of life and so also under the head of pain and suffering. In support of the submission as regards the Tribunal not awarding the amount received by the claimant under the Mediclaim Policy, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of Shaheed Ahmed v. Shankaranarayana Bhat, 2009 ACJ 1448 (Karnataka).

(3.) HAVING considered the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that no person can be allowed to reap the same advantage twice. In other words, if the claimant has received Rs. 50,000 under the Mediclaim Policy and the balance amount of the medical expenses incurred by him is awarded by the Tribunal, the net effect is that whatever amount actually incurred by the claimant has been paid to him. If the argument of the appellant's counsel is to be accepted and if the amount received under Mediclaim Policy is to be ignored, then the situation that would arise will be, claimant would be getting double payment and though the actual medical expenses incurred, for example, is Rs. 1,00,000, the claimant would be getting benefit of Rs. 1,50,000, which cannot be permitted having regard to the principles applicable to the assessment of compensation under various heads.