IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 530 of 2008()
1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MATHEW.P.OOMMON, PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :19/09/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 530 OF 2008
---------------------
Dated this the 19thday of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV) 581/06. The claimant is
the owner of the car which sustained damages in a road accident. A
perusal of the award would reveal that the owner of the car had to spend
Rs.17,496/- towards purchase of spare parts and repair charges. From
para 11 of the award it is seen that he had received a sum of Rs.11,870/-
towards claim under the comprehensive policy. So the question that arises
for determination is whether he is entitled to any final amount.
2. A learned Judge of this court has taken a decision that if it is a full
and final settlement one may not be entitled to. But the materials available
would not show that it is a full and final settlement. The Delhi High Court
had earlier taken a view that a tortfeasor cannot be permitted to escape
from the liability and directed the tortfeasor’s insurance company to pay the
entire damages. It was taking into consideration that decision also in mind
the learned Judge had held so. Suppose a person had spent an amount of
Rs.17,496/- and had only received Rs.11,870/- from his company,
necessarily, he has to be given the balance amount. If really he had filed a
case against the tortfeasor, without approaching the company for
comprehensive coverage, he would have been entitled to the entire
MACA No. 530/08
2
amount. So the basic principle in these types of cases is to the effect that
there cannot be unjust enrichment or double payment or duplication.
When a person had spent Rs.17,496/- and had only received Rs.11,870/- it
is necessary that he must be compensated for the balance amount of
Rs.5,626/- from the tortfeasor who is responsible for the accident. The
Tribunal has granted amount for taxi charges which I feel cannot be
granted and that such loses are not contemplated to be paid as damages
in a case of this nature. Therefore I hold that the Tribunal’s award requires
modification. Being a property damage, interest of 6% will be sufficient.
Therefore I modify the award passed by the Tribunal and pass a
revised award whereby the claimant is awarded a compensation of
Rs.5,626/- with 6% interest on the said sum from 13.3.06 till the date of
payment with a cost of Rs.1,000/-. The 3rd respondent shall make the
payment within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No. 530/08
3