ORDER

Usha Mehra, J. Appellant Dr. A.C. Mehra was awarded compensation of Rs. 4,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) vide the impugned award dated 22nd November, 1979. Aggrieved appellant preferred this appeal against the impugned award because he felt that compensation allowed was on the lower side. Further the Tribunal wrongly concluded that since the appellant had already received the claim from his Insurance Company for the damage of this car hence he was not entitled to claim any compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act).

2. The case of the appellant is that this plea of double enrichment was not taken by the respondent before the Tribunal. Hence cannot be taken now nor can take advantage of the insurance amount received by the appellant. That payment he received was pursuance to a separate contract entered into With his Insurance Company. Moreover, the Tribunal erroneously ignored the price paid by the appellant for purchase of the spare part at London.

3. These submissions have been contested by the respondent Insurance Company, inter alia, on the grounds that for the repair of this car the amount paid by the appellant to M/s. Saran Motors (P) Ltd., Janpath, stood reimbursed from his Insurance Company. Appellant cannot take double advantage, i.e. the through his insurance company on account of the policy taken out on this car as well as under the Act. Since the appellant already stood reimbursed for the expenses incurred on the repair of his car, therefore, his right to claim compensation stood subrogated. That his Insurance Company alone could file the claim under the Act. The appellant cannot unjustly enrich himself.

4. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parries, brief facts of the case are that on 9th September, 1975 at about 4.15 p.m., the appellant was proceeding in his car No. DLV-4513 towards Janpath. Hardly had he reached Rafi Marg that DTC Bus No.DHP-2023 driven by respondent No. 1 came from behind and hit the car of the appellant. Appellant spent around Rs. 8,000/- on repair of his car. Since the car remained in the garage for about 3 weeks, the appellant being a doctor by profession had to go to his clinic in taxi. He was forced to spend a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on taxis. Beside taxi fare he also claimed Rs. 5,000/- for the purchase of car part from London. Thus claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation under the Act. The Tribunal after going through the evidence and the documents placed on record concluded that the negligence in causing this accident was that of respondent No. 1 i.e. driver of the DTC bus. Tribunal also observed that the car after being damaged was sent to M/s. Saran Motors (P) Ltd., for repair. Car remained in that workshop from 16.9.1975 to 6.12.1975. Respondent No. 1 being driver of respondent No. 2 i.e. DTC hence both the respondents were jointly liable. The Tribunal, however, concluded that since the car was comprehensively insured and the repair bill of M/s. Saran Motors amounting to Rs. 2,785/- stood paid by the Insurance Company i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd., hence the appellant was not entitled to receive Rs. 2,785/-. Tribunal concluded that by allowing this amount of Rs. 2,785/-the appellant would get doubly enriched. That is not permissible under the Act. The Tribunal drew distinction of the English authorities cited by the appellant. Tribunal concluded that English Courts were dealing cases of personal injury whereas the case of the appellant pertained to an injury to a car. Hence English decisions were of no help to the appellant.

5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the authorities relied by the Counsel, I am of the opinion that the reasoning given by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for the appellant has correctly stated that the amount paid by his Insurance Company to M/s. Saran Motors cannot be adjusted or deducted. That was