The main legal point established in the judgment is that the owner of the property can file a claim for compensation for damages to the property against the offending vehicle, even if the property is comprehensively insured, and may also claim compensation from the owner or insurer of the offending vehicle.

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. Arguments heard finally with the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the Award dated 29th September, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 7 of 2006.

2. On 23rd July, 2007 the Appellant was travelling in his Qualis car No. MP04 F-7007 which had met with an accident by a Tanker No. MP-04-K-6723 due to rash and negligent driving of the Tanker. The Appellant had received injuries in the accident and the Qualis car of the Appellant was damaged therefore, he had filed Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries received by him and the damage suffered "by the car.

3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the impugned award dated 29th September, 2007 held that since the part of the compensation amount in respect of the damage to the Qualis car was received by the Appellant from the Insurance Company of the car without any objection, therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation amount on this account. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10% on the left hand and has awarded Rs. 40,000 on account of permanent disability, Rs. 37,000 on account of the actual medical expenses, Rs. 3,000 on account of loss of income during the treatment period and Rs. 2,000 on account of physical and mental pain and suffering. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 77,000 alongwith the interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the application.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim for the damage suffered by the Qualis car and has further committed an error in awarding the lower compensation amount under the different heads.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supporting the award submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error and no interference on this account is required.

6. So far as the issue of compensation for the damage to the Qualis car is concerned the Appellant has filed Ext. P-188 to Ext. P-192, which indicate that the Appellant had paid Rs. 4,58,000 for repair of the Qualis car No. MP-04-F-7007. The PW-6 Rajesh Kumar the Senior Assistant of the Oriental Insurance Company, with which the above Qualis car was insured, has stated that as against the estimate of Rs. 5,04,800 as per the Surveyor's report the Appellant was paid Rs. 3,21,467 for the damage suffered, which was received by the Appellant without any objection. Since the Appellant had received this amount from the Insurance Company of the Qualis car without any objection, therefore, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the differential amount.

7. The Tribunal did not appreciate that the contract of the Appellant with Insurance Company of Qualis car was a separate contract and if some amount was received by the Appellant from the Insurance Company, it would not debar the Appellant from claiming differential amount from the Insurance Company of the vehicle, which had caused the accident. This Court in the matter of Ramchandra v. Niyaz Hussain and Ors. reported in 2005 A.C.J. 1294 : 2004 (2) T.A.C. 420, on considering the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court and the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts has held that:

6. After hearing Counsel for the parties, the sole question arising for consideration before this Court is whether the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle is liable for payment of rest of the compensation towards damages even if he is admitted to have received his claim from the Insurance Company for the damage caused to his jeep. Section 166 of the Act provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of a nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made, (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the prope