Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Claim for Vehicle Damage, Rules Compensation Already Paid by Insurer is Adequate
Case Name: Ashok Kumar v. Satish and Others
Date of Judgment: January 5, 2015
Citation: FAO No. 3148 of 2011
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a vehicle owner seeking additional compensation for damages to his car, holding that the insurer had already compensated him under a valid comprehensive policy and no further claim was justified. Justice Fateh Deep Singh observed that once the insured has received compensation from the insurance company, he cannot pursue a separate claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the same damage. The Court found no error in the Tribunal’s reasoning, emphasizing that speculative estimates unsupported by expert testimony or credible evidence cannot form the basis of an award.
Summary: The appellant, Ashok Kumar, challenged the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, dated December 13, 2010, which had dismissed his claim for compensation arising from an accident involving his Maruti Zen VX (model 2001) that occurred on January 23, 2008. The vehicle, seven years old at the time, was insured comprehensively, and the insurance company had paid ₹52,000 to the owner as compensation. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined a mechanic, Baldev Raj (PW1), who provided a rough cost estimate (Ex.P1). However, the Tribunal found that the mechanic lacked formal qualifications and that his estimate had no serial number or technical authenticity. Moreover, the claimant failed to produce photographs, an expert inspection report, or market value data to substantiate further loss. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had accepted ₹52,000 from the insurer without objection, which indicated full satisfaction of his claim.
Justice Fateh Deep Singh concurred with the Tribunal, holding that the compensation already paid was reasonable considering depreciation of the vehicle over seven years of use. The Court stated that in the absence of credible expert evidence or proof of additional damage beyond the insured sum, no interference was warranted.
Decision: Finding the appeal devoid of merit, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming that the appellant had been adequately compensated under the insurance policy and could not reopen the claim.