The main legal point established is that an appellant cannot raise a fresh claim after accepting a settlement amount, and the court will consider the materials on record and the appellant's ability to substantiate the claim for additional compensation.

ORDER

A.B. Pal, President - We have heard Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.M. Ali, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. We propose to dispose of the above two appeals by this common judgment as they relate to the same vehicle which suffered damages in two separate accidents giving rise to the claims against the same insurer, the respondent herein.

3. Before adverting to the issues adumbrated in the above two appeals the facts may be briefly noticed.

4. The vehicle TR-01-B-1881, owned by the appellant, was a new Truck manufactured in 2002. After the purchase it was insured with the respondent-insurer for the period from 14.9.2002 to 13.9.2003. On 22.7.2003 the vehicle, while proceeding towards Agartala from Silchar, suddenly capsized and met with an accident. For the damages suffered the appellant lodged claim for Rs. 1,80,948. But the insurer offered only Rs. 57,943. The amount was however, accepted by the appellant towards full and final settlement of the claim. Thereafter on 7.4.2004 the appellant vide a letter to the insurer claimed further compensation which was, however, turned down by the insuer. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the District Forum,West Tripura, Agartala claiming a direction to the insurer to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,23,905. The claim was contested by the insurer. After a full dressed trial the learned District Forum, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 400, dismissed the claim of the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal (F.A-11 of 2008) putting under challenge the said judgment dated 5.5.2007.

5. In the other appeal (F.A-3 of 2008), the said vehicle unfortunately met another accident on 1.1.2004 within 5 months after the first accident . This time, the vehicle was proceeding towards Agartala from Dharmanagar loaded with salt. At Kumarghat the accident occurred due to mechanical failure. In the said accident the vehicle suffered substantial damage. Its front glass, Cap, Battery, lighting system, front shed, bumper marget steering and other parts were badly damaged. After the accident the appellant raised a claim of Rs. 1,70,628 to the insurer as compensation . Admittedly, the policy was renewed and the date of accident was covered by the period of the policy. The insurer, however, offered only Rs. 66,985 which was however, not acceptable to the appellant. The appellant then approached the learned District Forum by instituting CC-97 of 2005. In support of the claim the appellant adduced the estimate for the repairing works from Industrial Engineers, Khayerpur. The bill shows only an estimate amount of Rs. 105,000 not any amount spent for repairs . The appellant enclosed several vouchers as cost of spare parts in support of the total claim and examined by affidavit one Sanwarmal Bajaj, the constituted Attorney of the appellant firm. He was, however, re-examined and cross-examined later. In his deposition the attorney has not given details of the cost of spare parts. No money receipt from the work shop which actually repaired the vehicle has been furnished. One Sanjoy Debroy, a licensed assessor, submitted a report dated 14.4.2004 which was taken into consideration by the District Forum. The damage assessed by the assessor is Rs. 68,428. The insurer, however, examined no witness in support of the contention that the claim of the appellant is exaggerated. Learned District Forum, after taking into consideration the materials available on record awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 only towards compensation for the damages suffered by the vehicle in this second accident. Being dissatisfied with the amount awarded the claimant firm has preferred the present appeal.

6. After hearing learned Counsel at length and carefully going into the materials on record we are of the view that there is no good ground for us to interfere with the judgment dated 5.5.2007 in