Judgment ( 1. ) ARGUMENTS heard on merits. Order dictated in open Court. This order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. No. 1251/2005 as both the appeals are arising out of one award dated 14-12-2004 passed by Member, mact, Indore in Claim Case No. 291/2004 whereby the claim case filed by appellant was allowed and a sum of Rs. 31,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of injuries sustained by appellant. M. A No. 1529/2005 is filed by appellant for enhancement while M. A. No. 1251/2005 is filed by respondent no. 3 wherein liability of respondent No. 3 is challenged. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim case alleging that on 29-7-2003 appellant was going on his Scooty at about 4. 00 p. m. It was alleged that at that time a motor-bike bearing registration No. MP-09/jv/8215, which was driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 came from other side and dashed the vehicle of appellant with the result appellant sustained fracture of shoulder and also sustained fracture of humerus bone in left hand. Appellant was hospitalized from 29-7-2003 to 30-7-2003. Permanent disability was upto the extent of 20%. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 31,000/-, break-up of which is as under: ( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for appellant submits that appellant spent a sum of Rs. 29,000/- in his treatment but the same was rejected by learned Tribunal on the ground that appellant was having a medi-claim policy and the amount spent on that account has been recovered from Insurance Company. Learned Counsel further submits that learned Tribunal committed error in deducting the amount of medical expenses only on the ground that appellant was having a medi-claim policy. Reliance was placed on a decision of Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Kashiram Mathur Vs. Sardar Rajendra Singh, 1983 ACJ 152 , wherein this Court has observed that amount payable under life insurance policy, provident fund, family pension, gratuity cannot be taken into account while awarding compensation. Reliance was also placed on a decision of Division bench in the matter of MPSRTC Vs. Sardar Rajendra Singh, 1983 ACJ 152 , wherein this Court has observed that amount payable under life insurance policy, provident fund, family pension, gratuity cannot be taken into account while awarding compensation. Reliance was also placed on a decision of Division bench in the matter of MPSRTC Vs. Praiyank, 2000 ACJ 701 , wherein Division bench of this Court has observed that no deduction of amount which has been received by claimant from the Insurance Company for medical treatment and disability is deductible from the amount of compensation payable to the injured-claimant because the amount which has been received by claimant is under contract of insurance for which the appellant has paid premium. Reliance was also placed on a decision in the matter of Vrajesh Navnitlal Desai Vs. K. Bagyam, 2006 ACJ 65 , wherein Bombay High Court after placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of MPSRTC Vs. Priyank has observed that there is no reason to take any different stand in the matter and held that reimbursement of medical expenses are under the contract of insurance policy. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 3 placed reliance on a decision in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean mahajan, (2002) 2 SCC 281, wherein Honble Apex Court has placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Hodgson Vs. Trapp, 1988 (3) All ER 870, wherein it was observed as under: ". . . . . . the basic rule is that it is the net consequential loss and expense which the Court must measure, if, in consequence of the injuries sustained, the plaintiff has enjoyed receipts to which he would not otherwise have been entitled, prima facie, those receipts are to be set against the aggregate of the plaintiffs losses and expenses in arriving at the measure of his damages. All this is elementary and has been said over and over again. To this basic rule there are, of course, certain well established, though not always precisely defined and delineated, exceptions. But the Courts are, I think, sometimes in danger, in seeking to explore the rationale of the exceptions, of forgetting that they are exceptions. It is the rule which is fundamental and axiomatic and exceptions to it which are only to be admitted on grounds which clearly justify their treatment as such. But the Courts are, I think, sometimes in danger, in seeking to explore the rationale of the exceptions, of forgetting that they are exceptions. It is the rule which is fundamental and axiomatic and exceptions to it which are only to be admitted on grounds which clearly justify their treatment as such. " Honble Apex Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid law observed as under: from the above passage it is clear that the deductions are admissible from the amount of compensation in case the claimant receives the benefit as a consequence of injuries sustained, which otherwise he would not have been entitled to. ( 5. ) FROM perusal of record, it is evident that place of accident is nearby the centre of examination where the respondent No. 1 was admittedly for the whole day. Apart from this, criminal case was registered against respondent no. 1 immediately after the accident in which respondent No. 1 was arrested. After due appreciation of evidence, learned Tribunal found that offending vehicle was involved in the accident and it is respondent No. 1 who was driving the motor-bike at the relevant time, therefore, there was no reason to disturb the said finding. However, it is also evident that respondent No. 1 was not possessing any type of license at the time of accident. So far as injuries are concerned, it appears that looking to the injuries sustained by appellant the amount awarded is on lower side. No amount has been awarded on account of special diet, transport expenses, expenses incurred on attender and loss of wages for the period when the appellant was under treatment. So far as the law laid down in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra), is concerned, Apex Court has observed that claimant is not entitled to claim compensation which the claimant receives the benefit as a consequence of injuries sustained, which otherwise he would not have been entitled to. This position of law was not existing before the Honble Division Bench while delivering the judgment in the matter of Priyank (supra ). No doubt the amount of medical expenses has been received by the appellant under an agreement of insurance for which appellant has paid the premium. This amount of medical expenses is otherwise not available to the appellant. This position of law was not existing before the Honble Division Bench while delivering the judgment in the matter of Priyank (supra ). No doubt the amount of medical expenses has been received by the appellant under an agreement of insurance for which appellant has paid the premium. This amount of medical expenses is otherwise not available to the appellant. In the circumstances appellant is at the most entitled for the amount of premium which was paid by the appellant for medi-claim policy. In the opinion of this Court learned tribunal committed no error in deducting a sum of Rs. 29,000. 00 on account of medical expenses. In view of this, appellant is entitled for the following amount: ( 6. ) THE enhanced sum of Rs. 19,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7. 5% p. a. from the date of application till realization. ( 7. ) WITH the aforesaid observation, appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this order be retained in M. A No. 1251/2005.