JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 4th July, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal) in M.A.C. No. 116-S/2 of 2005, titled as Indus Hospital versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant (hereinafter referred to as ?the impugned award?) on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimants and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Only the appellant-HRTC has questioned the same on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant has received Rs. 28,198/- from the insurer of its vehicle; that amount should be deducted from the total compensation awarded and the appellant should be fastened with liability to pay the rest of the amount. 5. The Tribunal has considered this argument and the same has been replied in para 20 of the impugned award. 6. I have gone through the judgment relied upon by the Tribunal in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. versus K.P. Kapur & Ors., reported in I (1997) SCC 138. I deem it proper to reproduce para 5 and relevant portion of para 6 of the judgment herein: ?5. As regards the contention of Mr. Kishore Rawat that even if it was a total loss, the salvage value has to be deducted. I am afraid this argument is of no substance because this issue was not raised before the Tribunal nor the claimant had been given any opportunity to rebut the same. He cannot be taken by surprise with this new argument at appellate stage. 6. …..............There is no reason or justification in setting off what the appellant being entitled to receive under his contract with his Insurance company i.e., a third party. He had bargained for the payment of a sum of money in the event of accident happening and his car being damaged. Appellant insured his car with the Insurance Company and bargained for the payment of a sum of money on the clear stipulation that in the event of accident happening to his car he would be reimbursed. He had bargained for the payment of a sum of money in the event of accident happening and his car being damaged. Appellant insured his car with the Insurance Company and bargained for the payment of a sum of money on the clear stipulation that in the event of accident happening to his car he would be reimbursed. He did not receive the amount of Rs. 36,000/- from his Insurance Company because of this accident but because of the contract entered into by him with his Insurance Company. The pre-condition was the happening of an accident. The said Insurance Company on the happening of the accident was to reimburse him for the damage of his car. Therefore, it cannot be said that by claiming damages under the Act because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DTC bus and due to damage of his car he would be debarred from claiming compensation under the Act, nor claiming such a compensation under the Act would amount to unjust enrichment.? 7. Applying the test to the instant case, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly considered the plea and rejected the same. 8. Viewed thus, the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 9. The awarded amount be released in favour of the claimant strictly in terms of the impugned award through payee's account cheque. 10. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunals' file.