Case at a Glance
A 14-year-old student, hit from behind by a car in Rewari on 3 December 2014, suffered open fractures of the right femur and tibia and spent 65–66 days in Medanta Hospital. The MACT, Rewari awarded ₹22,20,000. In cross-appeals, the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the insurer’s plea to deduct ₹4 lakh received under a mediclaim policy, following the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi, (2026) 05 SC CK 0447. It allowed the claimant’s appeal, took the minor’s income at the skilled-worker minimum wage, added 40% future prospects, assessed 40% functional disability and awarded loss of marriage prospects and attendant charges, raising the award to ₹36,14,991 with 7.5% interest.
On 3 December 2014 at about 8:30 p.m., near Dr. Anil Hospital on Garhi Bolni Road, Rewari, a car driven by Jeet Ram struck Karambir and Tushar Yadav from behind; the driver fled. Tushar, a student aged about 14, was taken to Dr. Birendra Hospital and then to Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon, where he remained from 4 December 2014 to 19 January 2015. He had a fracture of the right distal femur with bone loss (an open type 3B fracture) and an open grade-2 fracture of the right proximal tibia. A medical certificate (Ex. PW-7/A) assessed permanent disability at 57%, likely to improve over about five years.
The claim petition sought ₹1 crore. On 11 November 2016 the MACT, Rewari assessed functional disability at 40% and awarded ₹22,20,000: ₹18,91,000 for medical and hospitalisation expenses, ₹29,000 for transport, a lump sum of ₹2,00,000 for future prospects and ₹1,00,000 together for pain and suffering, special diet and loss of amenities. The insurer appealed only to seek deduction of ₹4,00,000 the claimant had received as mediclaim through E-Meditek TPA Services Pvt. Ltd. The claimant appealed for enhancement. Tushar died while the appeals were pending and was represented by his legal representatives.
The Key Question Before the Court
Must mediclaim money received by an accident victim be deducted from MACT compensation, and how should loss of future earnings be computed for a permanently disabled minor with no income?
How the High Court rebuilt the award for a disabled minor
On the insurer’s appeal, the Court followed New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi (Supreme Court), holding that mediclaim benefits flow from a private contract the victim paid for, while compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is a distinct statutory entitlement. The amount received as mediclaim from personal medical insurance is therefore not to be deducted, and the insurer’s appeal was dismissed.
On the claimant’s appeal, the Court followed Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and took the minor’s income at the minimum wage of a skilled worker in Haryana on the date of the accident, ₹6,159 a month (₹73,908 a year). Relying on Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, (2020) 09 SC CK 0028 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 10 SC CK 0044, it added 40% future prospects (₹1,03,471 a year). Accepting 40% functional disability, since the disability would improve only partially, and applying a multiplier of 18, it computed loss of future earnings at ₹7,44,991. Citing authorities including Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 02 SC CK 0004, Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, (2024) 12 SC CK 0020 and R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 01 SC CK 0031, it awarded ₹2,00,000 each for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, ₹5,00,000 for loss of marriage prospects and ₹50,000 as attendant charges, while retaining the Tribunal’s medical (₹18,91,000) and transport (₹29,000) figures. The enhancement came to ₹13,94,991, taking the total to ₹36,14,991.
What the Court Actually Held
- Mediclaim received from a personal medical insurance policy cannot be deducted from motor accident compensation; the insurer’s appeal (FAO-1389-2017) was dismissed.
- For a minor without income, notional income can be taken at the skilled-worker minimum wage on the accident date (₹6,159 a month), with 40% future prospects added.
- With 40% functional disability and multiplier 18, loss of future earnings was ₹7,44,991; loss of marriage prospects (₹5 lakh), attendant charges (₹50,000) and enhanced pain and suffering and loss of amenities (₹2 lakh each) were also awarded.
- Total compensation was raised to ₹36,14,991 with 7.5% interest from the date of the claim petition; driver, owner and insurer must deposit the enhanced amount jointly and severally within two months, to be disbursed in equal shares to the claimant’s legal representatives.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It applies the Supreme Court’s Dolly Satish Gandhi ruling at the High Court level, closing off a common insurer objection.
- It shows how injured children with no earnings can still receive loss-of-earning compensation through notional skilled-worker income and future prospects.
- It recognises loss of marriage prospects and attendant charges as separate heads for a young victim left with permanent disability.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- Do not let the insurer deduct what you received under your own health or mediclaim policy.
- For an injured child, ask for income at the skilled-worker minimum wage of the State on the accident date, plus future prospects.
- Claim loss of marriage prospects and attendant charges where disability is permanent and hospitalisation long.
For Counsel
- Cite Dolly Satish Gandhi against any mediclaim deduction plea.
- Prove functional disability with medical evidence (here a 57% certificate, assessed as 40% functional disability).
- If the claimant dies during the appeal, bring legal representatives on record; the enhanced award is still payable to them.
Key Takeaways
- Mediclaim and MACT compensation are independent; the former is not deducted from the latter.
- A minor’s notional income can be the skilled-worker minimum wage, with 40% future prospects.
- Loss of future earnings = annual income with prospects × functional disability × multiplier.
- The award rose from ₹22.20 lakh to ₹36.14 lakh with 7.5% interest.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the insurance company reduce my MACT award because my mediclaim paid the hospital bills?
No. Following the Supreme Court in Dolly Satish Gandhi, the High Court held that mediclaim from a personal medical policy is not deductible from statutory compensation.
How is income fixed for a child injured in an accident?
Here the Court followed Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel and took the minimum wage of a skilled worker in Haryana on the accident date, ₹6,159 a month, and added 40% future prospects.
What happens if the injured claimant dies during the appeal?
The appeal continued through his legal representatives, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the enhanced amount to them in equal shares.
Conclusion
The ruling reinforces two points for motor accident litigation: an insurer cannot take credit for a victim’s own mediclaim, and children who suffer lasting disability must be compensated for the earning capacity they lose, not treated as having no income at all.
Practical takeaway: In injury claims for minors, plead notional skilled-worker income with future prospects, prove functional disability, and claim loss of marriage prospects and attendant charges as separate heads.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com