IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 708 of 2005() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1299/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- P.K.AHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.MAMMU, KARALATH HOUSE, KODOOR AMSOM, CHEMMANKADAM, (P0)KODOOR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, KUNHI MUHAMMED, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.UNNI HASSAN, CHEROTHODI HOUSE, TRIKALANGODE AMSOM DESOM, P.O.TRIKALANGODE, ERANADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS SRI.A.S.BRIJESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. ABDULLA, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KUNNUMAL HOUSE, THURAKKAL, MANJERI. 2. C.MOHAMMED, S/O.MOHAMMED CHENGAPILAKKIL HOUSE, KARUVATTOOR, VALLAPUZHA, PATTAMBI. 3. M/S.NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., POOTHERI BUILDING, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH - R2 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR - R3 SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH - R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.708 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)No.1299 of 1993. The claimant's lorry sustained damages in a road accident and under the comprehensive policy from the insurer of his vehicle, he got Rs.14,200/- and now he has filed a petition against the owner, driver and insurer of the other lorry claiming damages caused to his lorry. The Tribunal did not accept his contention and rejected the same. The Delhi High Court has taken a view that just because the owner of the vehicle has got compensation from his insurance company it cannot be taken as an advantage by the tortfeasor and therefore it is liable to pay the amount. But, recently a learned Judge of this Court had considered this point and has not agreed with the said proposition. The learned Judge in the decision reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. M.S.Mohan and others(2008(2) KHC 613) held that “in this case what is claimed is not fair compensation but the compensation on account of the pecuniary damages sustained. In fact, originally the first respondent/claimant wanted only the difference between MACA 708/2005 -:2:- the amount paid by his insurer and the amount alleged to have been spent by him. Third respondent insurer of the first respondent had filed a written statement contending that the first respondent received the amount by executing a receipt admitting that he received the amount in full and final settlement. It is very pertinent to note that third respondent is not making any claim for the amount paid by it..........”. So the decision of this Court makes it crystal clear that when amount is received from the insurance company to the effect that it is for the full and final settlement then further action will not lie. The insurance company of his vehicle has raised a definite contention that the amount has been paid as full and final settlement of the claim. PW1 has not mounted the box nor he did tender any evidence denying the same. Therefore, it has to be held that the receipt of the money by the claimant from his insurer is full and final settlement of the claim and therefore in view of the decision in 2008(2) KHC 613, the claimant cannot further claim compensation. Therefore MACA lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-