THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusMRS. DOLLY SATISH GANDHI

                      LSP                                1                5 fa 1344.14.doc


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          First Appeal No. 1344 of 2014

                      The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.                 …          Appellant
                           V/s.
                      Mrs. Dolly Satish Gandhi                        …          Respondent.


                       Mr. Devendranath S. Joshi         Advocate for the Appellant
                      (through V.C.)
                       Mr. T.J.Mendon                    Advocate for the Respondent
                                                         No.1.

                                                 CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J

                                                    DATE : 28th September 2026.

                      P.C. :
         Digitally
         signed by
         LATA SUNIL
LATA     PANJWANI
SUNIL
PANJWANI Date:
         2026.09.29
         11:36:47
         +0530
                      1.       Heard learned Advocate Joshi for the Appellant-Insurance
                      Company and learned Advocate Mendon for the Respondent-
                      Claimant.

                      2.       When the Appellant-Insurance wants to withdraw the appeal,
                      question is whether they cannot be allowed to withdraw the appeal
                      because the claimant wants just compensation to be determined by
                      this Court. Learned Advocate Mendon relied upon observations in
                      Para No.15 of the order dated 15 th May 2026 passed by Hon’ble
                      Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v/s. Dolly
                      Satish Gandhi and anr. In Civil Appeal No.7938/2026 (Page 107).
LSP                                  2                5 fa 1344.14.doc


It reads thus:
       “15. In fine, we hold that the amount received as part of
       Mediclaim/medical insurance is not deductible from
       compensation as calculated by the concerned Tribunal,
       adjudicating a claim for compensation under the MVA
       which may also include compensation under the head of
       medical expenses, if claimed. These two stand on a different
       footing – one is statutory while the other is contractual and
       the latter is only a sequitur of premiums having been paid in
       the past while the other is an entitlement as a consequence
       of an accident or death in a motor vehicle accident.

             The matter is remanded to the High Court for making
       a determination consistent with this opinion. The appeal is
       dismissed as meritless. Pending application(s), if any, shall
       stand disposed of.”


3.    This is opposed by learned Advocate Joshi for the Insurance
Company. With their assistance, I have tried to understand what is
the issue raised by the Insurance company in the present first appeal.


A)     The MACT Tribunal, Mumbai as per the judgment dated
       24th September 2013 directed the insurer and insured to pay
       compensation of Rs.13,80,000/- along with interest and
       liberty is granted to recover it from the insured. This is the
       injury claim. One of the head of the compensation is the
       expenses incurred by the claimant on hospitalization and
LSP                                 3              5 fa 1344.14.doc


       medical expenses. She has made a claim of Rs.14,00,000/-
       from the Tribunal. The quantification done by the Tribunal
       is as follows:
a)    Rs.987035/- granted by the Tribunal.
b)    Remaining amount is not granted.
c)    Rs.4,27,500/- is the amount granted to the claimant by same
      Insurance Company out of the mediclaim policy.


B)    The claim of the Insurance Company is while allowing the
      compensation of Rs.9,90,000/- the Tribunal ought to have
      considered the amount of Rs.4,27,500/-.

C)    This is    one of the ground taken in the present appeal.
      Considering difference in opinion this Court (Coram: Smt.
      Anuja Prabhudesai, J) as per the order date 29 th June 20 has
      framed question as follows:

            “Whether the amount received by the Claimant under
         the Mediclaim Policy Medical Insurance is liable to be
         deducted from the compensation payable to the Claimant
         under the head ‘medical expenses’ in proceedings under
         Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”

D)    Accordingly, the Full Bench is constituted and Full Bench as
       per the judgment dated 28th March 2025 held that
       reimbursement as per the mediclaim policy is one aspect and
       statutory compensation as per the M.V.Act is another aspect.
LSP                                 4              5 fa 1344.14.doc


E)     Issue was taken before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the
       instance of Insurance Company. However, it is answered in
       the negative and that is how direction as referred above is
       given.

4.    Mr. Mendon, learned Advocate submitted that his client is
fighting for the compensation since 2010 and till today she is not
paid with a single amount. He placed reliance on the direction given
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 21 st July 2025. In
Para-3 it is observed thus:

       “3. We clarify that, in fact, the respondents/claimants are
       at liberty to withdraw the same if not already done and
       the outcome of the present Special Leave Petition shall
       have no bearing on the merits qua entitlement or
       quantification of the amount of compensation.”

5.    According to him inspite of this direction his client has not
received a single pie. According to him if separate appeal has to be
instituted, it requires Court fee and legal charges whereas according
to Mr. Joshi after Supreme Court direction on 21st July 2025 the
claimant ought to have moved for withdrawal and she cannot blame
the Insurance Company.

6.    It is true the Tribunal and Courts are under obligation to arrive
at a quantum of just compensation. According to Mr. Mendon, the
Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for a total amount of
LSP                                  5               5 fa 1344.14.doc


Rs.14,00,000/- and not 9,90,000/-. He is pressing for the
compensation under additional heads also. It is true if the
compensation is not granted/inadequate amount is granted, it gives
right to the claimant to file separate appeal or cross objection. It is
very well true that the Courts are entertaining the claim for enhanced
compensation by exercising power of determining just compensation
even though there is no separate appeal or cross objection. However,
in this case the situation is different. Admittedly, there is no separate
appeal or cross objection. It is very well true the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has directed to determine the compensation. Now whether
this direction has to be understood in such a manner “ so as to
entertain the prayer for enhancement particularly when Insurance
Company do not want to prosecute the appeal is a question.”

7.    I am not in favour of the submission made by Mr. Mendon.
When the compensation is to be determined as directed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has to be determined on the basis of the
arguments made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Insurance
Company. Those arguments are the amount paid towards the
mediclaim has to be considered while granting the compensation
under the head reimbursement of hospitalisation and medical bills.
This cannot be interpreted as submitted by Mr. Mendon. If there is
no separate appeal or cross objection, the above said direction of
Hon’ble Supreme Court will not enure to the benefit of the claimant
so as to give him right to oppose for withdrawal of the appeal. This
could have been different if already there is a separate appeal/cross
LSP                                  6              5 fa 1344.14.doc


objection. Unfortunately, it is not there so I am allowing the
appellant to withdraw the appeal.

8.     Hence, appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with a following
direction:

                                    ORDER
      (i) The Tribunal is directed to pay the amount deposited by the
        Insurance Company to the claimant immediately along with
        necessary interest.

      (ii) The right of claimant to take appropriate steps thereby
        praying for enhancement of the compensation is kept intact.
        Even she is at liberty to pray for condonation of delay.

      (iii) The statutory deposit along with interest be transferred to
        the Tribunal at earliest.

      (iv) The Registrar (Judicial-1) is directed to see that R & P will
        be sent to the Tribunal within a period of 7 days.



                                                 (S.M. MODAK, J.)