JUDGMENT Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 28-2-2002 passed by the court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur, the United India Insurance Company, which is the insurer of the lorry involved in the accident, filed this appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 6-7-1994 at about 5 p.m., van bearing NO.APO2T-5945, belonging to the claimant was parked by the side of a tea hotel of one Ramachandra, on the national high way No.7. At about 5.45 p.m., a lorry bearing No.TN/36-5896 came from Punukonda side, allegedly with a high speed in a rash and jig jag manner and dashed the tea hotel and ran through the hotel and dashed the van of the claimant and as a result, the van dashed the tamarind tree and got damaged. It is stated that in the accident two persons died and six others were injured and a case in Crime No.26/1995 of Chennakothapalli Police Station was registered under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of I.P .C. Alleging that the claimant was eking his livelihood by giving the van on rent and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, claim petition was filed claiming damages of Rs.1,50,000 /- . 4. The owner of the lorry involved in the accident remained ex parte. 5. The United India Insurance Company, which is the insurer of the lorry, filed counter and stated that the van involved in the accident was insured with National Insurance Company and therefore the claimant can claim amount from the said insurance company and that the liability of the insurer of the lorry is limited to Rs.6,000/-. It is further contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the lorry was parked on the road. With these averments, the petition for damages was sought to be dismissed. 6. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.TN/36-5896 on 6-7-95 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. In support of the case of the claimant, P. Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. In support of the case of the claimant, P. Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and EX.B-1 and B-2 were marked. EX.X-1 was marked by Court. 8. Based on evidence of P.WS.1 and 2 who are owner and driver of the van respectively and considering Exs.A-1 to A-3 i.e., certified copy of F.I.R., M.V.I. report and charge sheet, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Though the claimant claimed damages of Rs.1,50,000/- for spending the amount for purchase of spare parts and repair and for loss of earnings, the Tribunal considering that the claimant has already settled the claim with National Insurance Company Limited, which is the insurer of the van, for Rs.53,000/- towards spare parts and repairs; and taking into account a judgment of this court that the loss of earnings through business cannot be granted during the period of repair, and further as there is no contract or agreement between National Insurance Company and the United India Insurance Company, granted an amount of Rs.53,000/- towards damages with interest at the rate of nine percent per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company mainly contended that the claimant has already settled his claim with National Insurance Company Limited, which is the insurer of the van for repairs and spare parts and, therefore, the award of court below in granting an amount of Rs.53,000/- amounts to awarding double claim and the same is illegal and liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant Sri P. Veera Reddy supporting the impugned award, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. From the above rival contentions and the material on record, the following question falls for my consideration: Whether the settlement of claim by the insured with the insurer of the vehicle for repairing of the same owing to the accident, bars him from claiming any damages from the insured and insurer of the other vehicle responsible for the accident? 12. From the above rival contentions and the material on record, the following question falls for my consideration: Whether the settlement of claim by the insured with the insurer of the vehicle for repairing of the same owing to the accident, bars him from claiming any damages from the insured and insurer of the other vehicle responsible for the accident? 12. In order to consider the above issue it is necessary to look into relevant portions of Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under Chapter XII. They are extracted as under for ready reference: 165. Claims Tribunals: (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both. Explanation:...... . (2) ....... (3)....... (4)....... 166. Application for compensation: (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Sec. 165 may be made,(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) (d) (2) ...... (3) Omitted (4) ........ 13. From a reading of Sections 165 and 166 of the Act it is clear that the State Government may constitute Claims Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a third party or both and such application can be filed by person who sustained injury or by the owner of the property. In the present case, the claimant who is the owner of the damaged van who is a third party, filed petition for damages and in view of the above provisions, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the claim petition being filed under Section 166 of the Act and the same is maintainable. 14. In the present case, the claimant who is the owner of the damaged van who is a third party, filed petition for damages and in view of the above provisions, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the claim petition being filed under Section 166 of the Act and the same is maintainable. 14. As per the case of the claimant as PW.1, he incurred an amount of RS.1,31,439/- for purchase of spares under EX.A-4 and Rs.15,390/- towards repair charges and he filed EX.A-5. On behalf of the United India Insurance Company which is the insurer of the lorry, R.W.1, the Assistant Divisional Manager was examined and he deposed that the van of the claimant was insured with National Insurance company, Ananthapur for the period from 1-2-1995 to 31-1-1996 and the accident occurred on 6-7-95 at 5-45 p.m. and the National Insurance Company has settled the claim of the claimant for Rs.53,000/- on 6-9-1995. The Tribunal has summoned the entire file relating to the settlement of the claim of the claimant with the National Insurance Company Limited and marked the same as EX.X-1, which is permissible under Section 152 of the Act. 15. The Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. This being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered with in the appeal. Because of the accident, the van of the claimant got damaged and the insurer of the lorry is jointly and vicariously liable to pay compensation along with the owner of the lorry and as per Section 165 and 166, the claimant is entitled to claim damages. As the van of the claimant was covered under a comprehensive insurance policy with the National Insurance Company, the claim of the claimant was settled. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, with regard to the present accident, which was the result of the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the contract is between the insured and insurer and the insurer has to indemnify the insured. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, with regard to the present accident, which was the result of the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the contract is between the insured and insurer and the insurer has to indemnify the insured. Further there is no contract between the National Insurance Company, which is the insurer of the van and the United India Insurance Company, which is the insurer of the lorry that in case of settlement of claim by the claimant with the National Insurance Company for repairs, he is not entitled to claim damages from the United India Insurance Company which is the insurer of the lorry responsible for the accident. Both the contracts are for different purposes and operate in different fields. In view of this reasoning, I answer the issue in favour of the claimant holding that the claimant is not barred from claiming damages from the insurer of the lorry which is responsible for the accident. 16. From the material it could be seen that the claimant by producing the bills for repairs has settled the claim for Rs.53,000/- with the insurer of the van i.e., the National Insurance Company. The claimant has claimed damages of RS.1,50,000/- from the owner of the lorry and its insurer. While examining as P.W.1, the claimant deposed that he incurred an amount of RS.1,31,439/- towards spares and Rs.15,390/- towards repairing charges; But as already noted above, the claimant has settled his claim for Rs.53,000/- with National Insurance Company towards the repairs and spares. But in this claim petition, the claimant is again claiming Rs.1,46,829/- for the same repairs and spares. This double claim under the same head, cannot be permitted and the Tribunal below has rightly negatived the claim of the petition. Further though the claimant claimed an amount of Rs.28,725/- towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal relying on the judgment of this Court in Konala Maniyya v. K. Sambasivarao1 has declined to grant the amount towards loss of earnings, as the same has to be recovered by filing a suit in civil court. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 17. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 17. Coming to aspect of damages, the case of the claimant is that he is eking out his livelihood out of the income of the van and due to the accident, caused by the driver of the lorry, his van got damaged and he spent certain amount and however, got it reimbursed from the National Insurance Company under a comprehensive policy. On 6-7-1995 the van met with the accident and the above claim for Rs.53,000/- was settled on 6-9-1995 and as already noted above, for the very same repairs, which he settled with National Insurance Company, he filed Exs.A-4 and A-5 bills amounting to Rs.1,25,275/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly negatived the claim on two grounds viz., that the claimant has already claimed Rs.53,000/- from the National Insurance Company for the same spare parts and repairs of the vehicle in full and final settlement and secondly that claimant claimed double the amount that he had settled with the insurance company. 18. It is well settled that damages are of two kinds viz., general damages and special damages. General damages are non-pecuniary damages which cannot be calculated in terms of money like pain and suffering, loss of amenities etc. Special damages are damages which can be calculated in terms of money like loss of income as a result of the accident. As already noted above, this court in the decision cited above, held that for loss of income, the claimant has to approach the Civil Court. The claimant has settled the claim with National Insurance Company for repairs. 19. In the counter by the United India Insurance Company it is stated that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs.6,000/- in the case of third party property damage if it is proved that the lorry was insured with the respondent company. The claimant in the column NO.17 mentioned the particulars of the policy number and its validity date. As noted by the Tribunal, the insurance company did not choose to deny the particulars and, therefore, an inference was drawn that the insurance policy of the lorry involved in the accident was in force. But as per the averment in the counter, if the claimant is able to prove that the policy is in force, the insurance company is liable to pay only Rs.6,000/-. But as per the averment in the counter, if the claimant is able to prove that the policy is in force, the insurance company is liable to pay only Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the claimant can be awarded Rs.6,000/- towards general damages. Further in my considered view, for awarding RS.53,000/-, there is no evidence or material on record. Therefore, when there is no specific evidence on this aspect, the grant of damages is on higher side. 20. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case the claimant is granted general damages of Rs.6,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realization. 21. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.