ORDER :

1. Since both the appeals arise out of a common award, they are heard and decided together.

2. The instant appeals have been preferred against the award dated 26.4.2014 passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.94 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000 as compensation in favour of claimant Rajendra Kumar Sahu.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that at the time of accident, claimant Rajendra Kumar Sahu was 61 years old and after retirement he was giving tuition to children. On 16.6.2012 at about 12:30 noon, while he was coming home, a swift car bearing registration No.CG 04 HB 3726, which was being driven rashly and negligently, dashed him. As a result of the accident, he sustained injuries on his body and got hospitalised in Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. At that time, Rajat Gupta was the driver of the said offending car and Srikant Gupta was the registered owner of the said car. The said car was insured with New India Insurance Company Limited. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was submitted by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000. In their reply, the driver and the owner of the offending car pleaded that as the car was duly insured with New India Insurance Company Limited and the driver of the offending car was having a valid and effective driving licence, liability to pay the compensation would be upon the insurance company. It was further pleaded that the claimant was also responsible for the accident and, therefore, it is a case of contributory negligence.

4. The insurance company, in its reply, pleaded that at the time of accident the driver of the offending car was not having a valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted compensation of Rs.25,000 in favour of the claimant. Liability to pay the compensation is fastened only on the driver and the owner of the offending car as a breach of the insurance policy was found by the Tribunal.

6. The claimant has preferred Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.856 of 2014 on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the claimant is not entitled to get compensation as he has already received medi-claim amount from the insurance company. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the claimant has obtained medi-claim amount after payment of the premium, which is a different procedure. Therefore, the claimant is legally entitled for the said medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded him only Rs.5,000 towards attendant, nutritious diet and travelling expenses, which is on lower side.

7. The driver and the owner of the offending car have preferred Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.613 of 2014 on the ground that from the evidence adduced by them, it is well established that at the time of accident the driver of the offending car was going in the car along with his cousin Amit Gupta towards a school. At that time, the offending car was being driven by Amit Gupta, who possessed a valid driving licence. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there was a breach of the insurance policy is not in accordance with the evidence available on record. Thus, the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the insurance company from the liability of payment of the compensation.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the amount of medi-claim, which has been received by the claimant from the insurance company, is a pecuniary advantage which cannot be deducted from the compensation. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2018 SC 5034 and the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Royal Sundram General Insurance Company