JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The Future Generally India Insurance Co. Ltd. aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 12.10.2022 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anand in M.A.C.P. No. 579 of 2013, has preferred this First Appeal, challenging the same on the ground inter alia raised that the claimant was already indemnified by Oriental Insurance Company under Own Damage Claim and was paid Rs.2,89,972/- out of the total expense incurred, which is stated to be Rs.3,34,372/- by the claimant, who had preferred the claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’ for short) for the damage, which had occurred to his Car No. GJ-23-H-1264.

2. The claimant was driving his Car No. GJ-23-H-1264 on 08.09.2010 going from Bhavnagar towards Mahuva, and suddenly driver of the Truck No. GJ-01-BY-5538 ahead of him, applied brakes without any tail light, brake light or any signal, and as per the claimant, owing to the full beam headlight of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction, he could not see that the driver of Truck No. GJ-01-BY-5538, ahead of him, applied sudden brake and had stopped his truck; as a result his Car dashed at the rear side of the Truck, and, hence, vehicular accident took place, and the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Hanumant Hospital at Mahuva for treatment.

2.1 The claimant in his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at Exh.28, had deposed that at the time of accident, he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by practicing as a Doctor and was also in the business of Ayurvedic Products. The learned Tribunal while considering the quantum of compensation had observed that the claimant was hale and healthy at the time of accident, and nothing was produced to show any injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident. The learned Tribunal was also of the view that, if the applicant himself is a Doctor by profession, then certainly he would have the medical papers suggesting the injuries, and as no documents have been produced, the learned Tribunal did not believe of any personal injury sustained by the applicant in the vehicular accident. In absence of any injury, the learned Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not entitled for any compensation under section 166 of the M.V. Act. No such ground has been raised in the present appeal against dismissal of the plea for personal injury. Thus, this Court has no reason to enter into the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal.

2.2 However, in addition to the claim of personal injury, the applicant had also moved the Court for damage caused to his vehicle, and, for that a prayer was made to compensate him to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/-. In the deposition, the claimant had stated that in the vehicular accident, his car was badly damaged, and he had incurred expense of Rs.3,18,752/- for repairing the car. The panchnama was produced at Exh.35, which reflected that the Car being Registration No. GJ-23-H-1264 was damaged from the front side; the Engine of the vehicle was also badly affected. The front side wheels were broken and there were cracks in the engine. In addition to that, rear glass of the vehicle was also broken and the interior of the car was damaged. The estimated cost of the car repairing was to the tune of Rs.4,36,778/-. The document produced on record shows that actual expense incurred for repairing the car, was Rs.3,34,372/-.

2.3 The learned Tribunal had found that the Insurance Company of the car had already indemnified the damages by paying Rs.2,89,972/-. While considering the judgment of this Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Hargovinddas R. Modi, (2007) 3 ACC 596, the learned Tribunal was of the view that the amount already received for the damage of the car from his Insurance Company cannot be deducted as collateral benefit, which insured was entitled to receive for his prudent act, and the tort-feasor cannot take advanta