SUNIL BAJAJ Vs. TRIYAMBAK SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE owner of the vehicle Tavera Car bearing registration No. CG-04/H-7211 (the appellant herein) has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the dismissal of the claim petition by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.49/2008 vide order dated 24/10.2008.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 13.06.2007 when the appellant was going to Sundarnagar from Lakhenagar by his vehicle Tavera Car bearing registration No.CG-04/H- 7211 which was insured with Insurance Company, at the same time the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle Santro Car bearing registration No.CG-04/H-3972 dashed his vehicle from back side near Ashwani Nagar in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which his vehicle got damaged. The matter was reported to the police station Azad Chowk and challan was presented before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (CG). Thereafter the applicant filed an application for compensation of Rs.29,857/- before the insurer of his vehicle for damages of his car and he received Rs.17,715/- from his insurer towards repairs of his vehicle. Thereafter, the applicant filed petition before the Tribunal against the owner and insurer of offending vehicle i.e., Santro Car bearing registration No. CG-04/H-3972 for remaining amount of Rs.12,142/- towards repairing of his car and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony.

(3.) SHRI S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and bad-in-law. He also argued that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the claim petition. He further argued that the Tribunal miserably failed to appreciate that the claim petition was maintainable despite the fact that the appellant had received some amount of compensation from the Insurance Company of his car. He also argued that there is no bar under the law to present an application for the remaining compensation of property damage of third party. The Tribunal has misquoted and misinterpreted the judgment of Hanumanthappa Vs. Ganapathi R. Kini and another 1.