IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 530 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.581/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: 3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT: ---------------------- MATHEW.P.OOMMON, PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R1 SRI.AJEESH K.SASI FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO.530/08 ORDER ON IA No. 646/08 IN MACA No.530/08 DISMISSED 19.9.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 530 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 19th day 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