THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A. C.M.A. No.21 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This is an Appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the Award in M.V.O.P.No.84 of 1999, dated 14- 07-2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Khammam. On 30-06-1998, the appellant along with others was traveling in a Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 20 C 8586. The vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationery lorry bearing No. AP 16 T 6355. The petitioner received injuries and she was treated in different hospitals. She, therefore, filed the O.P. seeking a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- towards general and special damages with interest at 24% per annum. Since this is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, the issue relating to rash and negligence need not be gone into in this appeal. For the purpose of quantum, the appellant relied on medical evidence of one, Dr.Damodar (P.W.2) and presented 9 medical prescriptions in Ex.A4, 12 Medical Bills representing Rs.72,874/- in Ex.A5, Discharge Card Ex.A6 and X-Ray Films in Ex.A10. The third respondent, Insurance Company, opposed the claim pleading that the claim was excessive. The appellant sustained in all 6 injuries as follows : (1) Grievous injury on head with LW forehead, (2) Fracture shaft femur comminuted with displacement, (3) Grievous fracture subgelnoid region right scapula, (4) Grievous fracture to BB right leg L/3 with displacement, (5) Contusion cervical spine and (6) Contusion on eight foot. The appellant underwent treatment in Singareni Company Hospital, Kothagudem in the first instance and later in the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad and Deepa Hospital. The evidence shows that injury Nos.2, 3 and 4 are grievous in nature and the other are simple injuries. The Tribunal having regard to the nature of injuries, awarded the compensation in respect of each injury. Rs.20,000/- each to injuries 2 and 3, Rs.30,000/- for injury No.4 and Rs.6,000/- for all the three simple injuries. In addition to the same, a sum of Rs.12,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment. Based on Ex.A5 Medical Bills, which represented the expenses towards medicines, the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.72,000/-. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-. The limited grievance of the appellant in this case is that the Tribunal while awarding Rs.72,000/- towards medical expenses had made the payment contingent. The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled for this amount of Rs.72,000/- only after filing material to the effect that she could not receive medi claim and without production of such document, she is not entitled for medical expenses. This is the limited grievance of the appellant in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel of both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Rupendra Mahendra would submit that the appellant spent Rs.72,874/- towards medical expenses and that she also established the said fact under Ex.A5. The counsel would submit that the Tribunal having accepted the claim as correct, ought to have directed payment of the said sum unconditionally. He would submit that the medi claim to which she voluntarily contributed cannot be a ground to refuse the amount payable towards medical expenses. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would contend that the appellant is not entitled for double benefits both under the medi claim and under the policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal accepted Ex.A5 and awarded a sum of Rs.72,874/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal however made it contingent in the event the appellant received the insurance amount under the medi claim policy, she is not entitled for the said amount. It may be noted that the medi claim policy was taken by the appellant on payment of separate premium and the said policy would constitute a separate contract between the appellant and the Insurance Company. The said medi claim policy has nothing to do with the policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle. The Insurance Policy, which is issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is a distinct and separate statutory contract under which the Insurance Company is liable towards the claimant on account of accident as provided under the Act. Therefore, the medi claim policy cannot be a bar for payment of compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court, therefore, holds that the appellant is entitled for Rs.72,000/-, which was awarded by the Tribunal, unconditionally and the order in M.V.O.P.No.84 of 1999 dated 14-07-2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Khammam to the extent of the order which states “After filing material to the effect that the petitioner could not receive medi claim, then only, she is entitled for medical expenses of Rs.72,000/-. Without production of such document, she is not entitled for medical expenses.” is set aside. The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 02nd July, 2010 Skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A. C.M.A. No.21 of 2006 Date : 02-07-2010 Between : Smt.Kusumalatha Agarwal .. Appellant And Eeli Narsimha Rao and two others .. Respondents