Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sher Singh vs Mohinder Singh Etc on 18 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
264 FAO-1277-2000 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 18.11.2024
SHER SINGH .... Appellant
VERSUS
MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant
challenging the award dated 16.12.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), aggrieved by the
amount awarded for the damage caused to his vehicle.
2. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that a
total of ₹2,33,000 was spent on the repair of the vehicle and in addition the
appellant also spent ₹3,100 on replacement of the batteries, ₹2,500 on account
of crane charges and that the vehicle remained off the road for four and a half
months and on the said account the claimant-appellant suffered a loss of
₹15,000 per month. It is further the contention that the Tribunal has deducted
the amount, which was received by the claimant-appellant from his own
insurance company towards the damage of the vehicle and that the Tribunal
could not have deducted the said amount while assessing the amount to be
awarded for the damage caused to the vehicle. Learned counsel would further
264 FAO-1277-2000 (O&M) -2-
contend that photocopies of the bills marked 'A' and 'B' were totaling
₹1,90,921.50. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the claimant-
appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in FAO-4396-
2001 titled as Raman Kumar V/s Ashwani Kumar & Ors. decided on
13.09.2023.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company would contend that the issue regarding 'whether the claimant would
be entitled to further compensation for damage caused to his vehicle having
already received the amount from his own insurance company' was dealt with
by this Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. V/s
Harminder Singh Rosha [(2018) 5 RCR (Civil) 384] wherein it was
categorically held that once the amount had been received from the insurance
company towards damage of a vehicle, no further amount could be awarded
by the Tribunal drawing an analogy from the discussion in the previous
paragraphs wherein it was held that the amount claimed under the mediclaim
policy by the claimant was liable to be adjusted while awarding compensation.
4. Heard.
5. In the present case the only argument of the learned counsel for
the claimant-appellant is that the claimant-appellant was entitled to the
damages caused to his vehicle and that the amount already paid to him by his
own insurance company was not liable to be taken into account as the said
amount was paid to him because of the premium that he had been paying every
year on the policy taken by him. The said argument deserves to be rejected in
view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Harminder Singh
Rosha (supra). In the said judgment a Single Bench of this Court, while
264 FAO-1277-2000 (O&M) -3-
relying upon the judgments passed by various High Courts, held that the idea
was not to over-compensate the claimants and that the amount paid under the
mediclaim was liable to be adjusted against the amount being awarded by the
Tribunal. On the same analogy it was also held that any damage to the vehicle
which had already been paid for by the insurance company was liable to be
adjusted. The claimant-appellant herein had only produced photocopies of the
bills and the originals of the same were never produced on the record. Even
the photocopies of the said bills were amounting to ₹1,90,921.50. Admittedly
the claimant-appellant has already received a sum of ₹1,80,000 from his own
insurance company. An amount of ₹8,000 was also awarded on account of
loss of income suffered by the claimant-appellant during the four and a half
months when the vehicle remained off the road.
6. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
claimant-appellant in the case of Raman Kumar (supra) pertains to an injury
case and thus the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
7. Since there was no document proved on the record showing the
amount spent on repair and the loss of income because of the truck remaining
off the road, no interference is called for in the impugned award passed by the
Tribunal.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal
and the same being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
18.11.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
