IMPORTANT POINT
The liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay compensation for damages and loss of earnings is determined under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 163A and Section 166.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri.Suresh M.Lathur, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.1.

2. Disputing the validity and the legality of the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in MVC No.4568/2012 dated 5.3.2013, the present appeal is preferred.

3. As per the material borne by record, the appellant moved an application claiming damages of Rs.2,00,000/-for the loss suffered by him due to the damage caused to his car bearing Registration No.KA.02 AA.1320. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the claim made by the appellant and thus, the present appeal is preferred.

4. The case of the appellant as per his pleadings is that on 23.10.2011 at about 6.20 a.m. while he was proceeding in his Indica Car bearing Registration No.KA.02 AA.1320 near City Market Circle, one Car bearing Registration No.KA.51.6050 approached his vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his car, due to which he lost control over his vehicle and hit against an electric pole, due to which his car got totally damaged.

5. The second respondent resisted the claim of the appellant on several grounds, firstly, he denied the manner of happening of accident as projected by the appellant.

Secondly, he denied the occurrence of any damages to the vehicle of the appellant. Thirdly, that the insurer of the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.78,000/-towards full and final settlement of the claim and therefore, claiming the same amount again is unjustifiable.

6. As earlier indicated, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant.

7. Subjecting the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, RW1, Exs.P1 to P14, Exs.R1 and R2 to scrutiny, the Tribunal came to such a conclusion.

8. Arguing in respect of merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that, the appellant incurred huge amount for getting his vehicle repaired. The appellant did not receive the total amount which he spent from his insurer. Learned counsel contends that the appellant was eking out his livelihood by running his vehicle as a taxi and he could not run his vehicle on road for a period of two months and thus, sustained loss of Rs.60,000/-. Learned counsel states that the appellant was earning Rs.30,000/-per month through his vehicle and the loss sustained by him therefore is required to be compensated by the second respondent. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the appeal as prayed for.

9. The submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant cannot take double benefit. Having received compensation from his insurer appellant cannot again claim the same amount from respondent No.2 and hence considering the said aspect, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition and therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10. As per the contents of Ex.P10 tax invoice, the amount charged for the repairs is Rs.1,10,375/-. By the contents of Ex.P9 it is clear that the insurer of the appellant approved his liability to an extent of Rs.77,051/-As per the contents of Exs.P9 and P10 it is also clear that basing on contents of Ex.P10, the insurer of the appellant issued Ex.P9. Therefore, the genuineness of Ex.P10 cannot be doubted. Thus, it is clear that the appellant incurred a sum of Rs.1,10.375/-for the repairs to the damaged vehicle. The amount which was paid by his insurer as per the contents of Ex.P9 is admittedly Rs.77,051/-. Therefore, the appellant had incurred an additional expenditure of Rs.33,324/-.

11. Making a submission that when the total amount spent is not paid by the insurer of the aggrieved, the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the balance, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in the case between R.P.Zuber Vs. Basavarajappa and another reported in 2016 ACJ 2307, wherein this Court at paragraph No.7 of the order held as f