JUDGMENT : Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2016, made in M.C.O.P. No.195 of 2014, on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Karaikal. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Transport Corporation to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2016, made in M.C.O.P. No.195 of 2014, on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Karaikal. 2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.195 of 2014, on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Karaikal. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 26.08.2012. 3. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, when she was traveling in a Hyundai Car bearing Registration No.TN-07-BD-3210 to Airport, Chennai, along with her husband and two minor grand children, driven by its driver from South to North direction on the extreme left side, near Salavathy Village at NH 45 Road between Tindivanam and Chennai, the 2nd respondent/driver of a Bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-3269 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation drove the same in a hectic speed from the opposite direction and hit against the Car near college bye pass Kootroad and caused the accident. Due to the heavy impact, both the Car as well as the Bus started burning. The Car driver and some passengers from the Bus jumped out of the vehicle and by using the available water tried to put off the fire, but they could not succeed. The husband of the 1st respondent, who was sitting in the front seat of the Car was charred to death and the 1st respondent sustained several bone fracture, crush injury on lower jaw, injuries on her right hand, left leg and lost her left eye vision. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent, driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant. Hence, the 1st respondent filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent as driver and appellant as owner of the offending vehicle. 4. The appellant-Transport Corporation, filed separate counter statements with identical facts and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. Hence, the 1st respondent filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent as driver and appellant as owner of the offending vehicle. 4. The appellant-Transport Corporation, filed separate counter statements with identical facts and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. According to the appellant and 2nd respondent, on the date of accident, the 2nd respondent drove the Bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-3269 in the NH-45 road between Thindivanam to Chennai, very slowly and carefully. The above NH 45 road is a 4 way track and all the incoming and outgoing vehicles were following traffic rules and regulations. At mid night, when the 2nd respondent drove the Bus near Salavathi Village, a Hyundai Car bearing Registration No.TN-07-BD-3210 came from opposite direction in a hectic speed without following traffic rules and the driver of the Car without seeing the 4 way track at the junction of 4 road, suddenly crossed the road. Though the 2nd respondent applied break, the Car dashed the Bus and thus the accident occurred. Since the Hyundai Car is a petrol vehicle, due to the immediate crush, the petrol tank burst and both the Car and Bus got fired. The accident occurred only due to negligent driving by unexperienced driver of the Car. The 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus is an experienced driver. At the time of accident, the driver of the Car did not possess valid driving license. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has stated in the Accident Inspection Report that the Car has been completely burnt and R.C. Book and other particulars of the Car were not produced. The 1st respondent has to prove that no claim is made before other forum. In any event, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Car in which the 1st respondent traveled. The 1st respondent has to prove her age, avocation and income, injuries sustained and treatment taken to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, Dr. Rajagopal was examined as P.W.2 and marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24. The appellant examined 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus as R.W.1, their official as R.W.2 and marked 1 document as Ex.R1. 6. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, Dr. Rajagopal was examined as P.W.2 and marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24. The appellant examined 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus as R.W.1, their official as R.W.2 and marked 1 document as Ex.R1. 6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent, driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and directed the appellant as owner of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.17,61,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. 7. To set aside the award of the Tribunal dated 03.02.2016, made in M.C.O.P. No.195 of 2014, the appellant – Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Car in which the 1st respondent traveled. The 2nd respondent, driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant is well experienced driver. The driver of the Car is not an experienced driver. P.W.1 has not deposed the manner of accident as alleged in the claim petition. Two vehicles were involved in the accident. Due to burst of petrol tank of the Car, both the Car and Bus burnt. It is only an Act of God. The accident has not occurred due to negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, driver of the Bus. The Tribunal failed to see that except 1st respondent, no other independent witness was examined to prove the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. In any event, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The 1st respondent has not filed any document to show that she required future treatment. In the absence of any materials, the Tribunal erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. The Tribunal failed to see that there was reimbursement of medical expenses by a Government Agency. The Tribunal without verifying the reimbursement by the 1st respondent, awarded entire amount claimed by her towards future medical expenses. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is not supported by proper documents. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is not supported by proper documents. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent, driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant who suddenly turned to right side without any signal. The FIR was registered only against the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent proved the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent by examining P.W.1. The 1st respondent has produced medical bills from the Hospitals where she has taken treatment and marked the same as Exs.P6 to P18. The alleged seal in Ex.P6 to P18 is affixed only to obtain Exs.P21 and P22, to avail benefits from the Government and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the 1st respondent and perused the materials available on record. 11. It is the contention of the 1st respondent that while she and others were travelling in the Hyundai Car, the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Car in which the 1st respondent travelled and caused the accident. In the accident, the 1st respondent suffered injuries and claimed compensation. To substantiate her contention, she examined herself as P.W.1 and marked FIR which was registered against the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus, as Ex.P1. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that accident occurred only due to negligence of the driver of the Car. To substantiate their contention, 2nd respondent, the driver of the Car was examined as R.W.1 and Branch Manager of the appellant was examined as R.W.2. The Tribunal considering the evidence of R.W.2, Branch Manager and the fact that there was no signal for turning at the place of occurrence of accident, held that driver of the Car was going in his right path and the 2nd respondent, driver of the Bus failed to prove in his evidence as R.W.1 that driver of the Car was negligent. FIR was registered against the driver of the Bus. FIR was registered against the driver of the Bus. The appellant or the 2nd respondent has not lodged any complaint against the driver of the Car or not filed any objection to the FIR being registered against the driver of the Bus. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.W.1, R.W.1, R.W.2 and FIR, held that accident occurred only due to negligence of the driver of the Bus and directed the appellant-Transport Corporation to pay the compensation. There is no error in the finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 12. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the 1st respondent that in the accident, she suffered injuries and fracture, she has taken treatment as inpatient at Hospital and underwent surgery. She examined P.W.2 Doctor to prove the injuries and disability suffered by her. The appellant has not examined any witness to disprove the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor. The Tribunal, in the absence of any contra evidence of P.W.2 Doctor and disability certificate issued by P.W.2 Doctor, accepted the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor and granted compensation for disability. From the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- each for travelling expenses, extra nourishment and attendant charges and Rs.2,00,000/- for future medical expenses. The 1st respondent has not produced any materials to prove the travelling expenses and future medical expenses. In the absence of any materials, the compensation granted by the Tribunal for travelling expenses is excessive and the same is reduced to Rs.30,000/-. Though the amount granted by the Tribunal towards future medical expenses is excessive, considering the entire materials, the same is not interfered. 13. As far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal for medical expenses is concerned, in support of her claim, the 1st respondent has marked Exs.P6 to P18 to prove the medical expenses incurred by her for treatment. In the said documents, a seal reflecting “Central National de remboursement des Soins à I'Étrangers C.N.S.E” has been affixed. Once the 1st respondent has got reimbursement of the amounts spent for medical treatment, she is not entitled to have the very same amount for the injuries suffered in the accident as that will amount to double payment and 1st respondent will be unjustly enriching herself. The reimbursement is in the nature of amounts paid under the Medi claim policy. Once the 1st respondent has got reimbursement of the amounts spent for medical treatment, she is not entitled to have the very same amount for the injuries suffered in the accident as that will amount to double payment and 1st respondent will be unjustly enriching herself. The reimbursement is in the nature of amounts paid under the Medi claim policy. A similar issue was considered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in 2016 ACJ 807 [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Akber Badsha and others], wherein it has been held as follows: “12. These aspects were infact considered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court pursuant to the reference made, doubting the decision rendered by a Single Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Shaheed Ahmed v. Sankaranarayana Bhat (ILR 2008 Karnataka 3277). It was accordingly held by the Bench in the New India Assurance Company Limited v. Manish Gupta [2013 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 624] explaining the significant difference in between and observing that the very concept of insurance is not to extend any unlawful enrichment to anybody in respect of the very same cause of action. The purpose of insurance is only to place the party to the same level from where he suffered the downfall because of the contingency occurred. The observations made by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 22 are in the following terms: 18. The tests to be applied for determining “the ‘pecuniary advantage’ which has to be deducted from the amount of compensation in a case of death are: (1) Onus is on the insurer to establish that some pecuniary benefit or reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit to the claimants, is resulting from the death of the deceased. (2) Damages to be awarded to the claimants are compensatory and not punitive. Therefore, the test that no advantage should accrue to the wrong doer would not be applicable. (3) Where death has merely accelerated the receipt of benefits, which the claimants would have in any case, received at some future date in such cases pecuniary benefits come to the claimants not by reason of the death. The pecuniary advantage received by the claimants is the advantage gained by acceleration of their interest. (3) Where death has merely accelerated the receipt of benefits, which the claimants would have in any case, received at some future date in such cases pecuniary benefits come to the claimants not by reason of the death. The pecuniary advantage received by the claimants is the advantage gained by acceleration of their interest. (4) Benefits received from the employer in some cases may be held to come to the claimants by reason of death. But, if the benefits are shown to have been received merely out of consideration for these claimants, e.g., contributions by co-workers to relieve the needs of the claimants, then such benefits cannot be held to have been received merely by reason of death of the deceased. (5) Lastly, if there is any doubt as to whether the balancing principle extends to any class of benefit not covered by any binding authority, the doubt has to be resolved in favour of the claimants inasmuch as in such a case the defendant must be held to have failed to discharge the burden placed on him to justify such deduction. 19. With reference to the deductions under the Mediclaim, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Priyank reported in 2000 ACJ 701 , placing reliance on the full Bench decision has observed that the amount received by the insured under the Mediclaim Policy is not deductible inasmuch as the claimant has received these amount under the contract of insurance, for which had paid premium. We are unable to persuade ourselves agree to the opinion rendered by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, moreso having regard to the fact that the Full Bench had ruled and classified as to what are the amounts, which are deductible and the amounts which are not deductible. 20. Indeed an injured person cannot claim benefit out of his own misfortune. He cannot claim medical expenses under the Mediclaim policy and also claim damages in the nature of amount expended for medical treatment under the claim petition, which is filed under the Motor Vehicles Act. 20. Indeed an injured person cannot claim benefit out of his own misfortune. He cannot claim medical expenses under the Mediclaim policy and also claim damages in the nature of amount expended for medical treatment under the claim petition, which is filed under the Motor Vehicles Act. In similar, if not identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporations v. Anantharam Singh reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1088 has observed that once a claim is satisfied with respect to the damages caused to the car by the insurer, the question of the owner of the car claiming damages as against the tort - feasor before the Claims Tribunal does not arise inasmuch as the cost of repair having been already recovered through the insurer, the claimant or the owner of the case cannot claim compensation under the claim petition filed under the Act. It is useful to extract the observations made by the Division Bench, which would read as under: (xx xx xxx--omitted) 22. In the case on hand, the facts are almost similar. It is not in dispute that in all the claim petitions, the claimants had taken the Mediclaim Policies and they have claimed the amount under the policy. We are of the view that the question of the claimants claiming compensation in the claim petition, which is filed under the Act for the amount expended by them for the treatment, certainly cannot be granted. The medical expenses as observed, is classified as a pecuniary loss. Pecuniary loss in its context means that the actual amount, which is expended by the claimant for treatment. If the said amount has been paid by the insurer under the Mediclaim policy, the question of the claimant claiming the very same amount for the very same purpose, which is inclusive of the expenses, which are incurred by him for the hospitalization and for his treatment does not arise. Undoubtedly, if the amount, which is received by the claimant under the Mediclaim policy falls short of the actual expenses expended by him, it is always open for him to claim the difference of amount spent from the Tribunal. But however he cannot claim compensation under both the Mediclaim policy as well as the claim petition filed under the Act. Undoubtedly, if the amount, which is received by the claimant under the Mediclaim policy falls short of the actual expenses expended by him, it is always open for him to claim the difference of amount spent from the Tribunal. But however he cannot claim compensation under both the Mediclaim policy as well as the claim petition filed under the Act. The decision of the Apex Court in Hellen C. Rebello's case was in respect of the Life Insurance Policy and not in respect of a Mediclaim Policy and therefore the said decision is distinguishable.” ........................ 15. In the instant case, both the policies have been issued by one and the same Insurance Company. According to the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, the mischief was brought to light only when the claimant was required to produce the original bills before the Tribunal so as to sustain the claim; when he had to produce a certificate issued by the Insurer as Ext.A8, to the effect that a sum of Rs. 78418/- (as claimed in the claim petition before the MACT) had already been obtained by him on producing the original bills before the Insurance Company under the Mediclaim Policy. It was in the said circumstance that the said amount was sought to be set off. .................... 17. The remaining aspect is with regard to the ‘premium’ already satisfied by the party for obtaining the ‘Mediclaim Policy’ as mentioned above. The learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that no contingency, as apprehended has taken place as there was no case for the claimant at any point of time during the subsistence of the policy, that any claim preferred before the Insurance Company was declined or restricted to a lesser extent, referring to satisfaction of the amount towards medical bills in respect of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Still, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the Company is ready to give credit to the ‘premium’ satisfied by the claimant for obtaining the ‘Mediclaim policy’ during the relevant year which amount could be treated as an expense and claimed before the Tribunal.” 14. Subsequently, the very same issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.2232 of 2015. The Division Bench considered the following judgments: (a) 2013 ACJ 2366 (New Delhi) [Bazaz Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Subsequently, the very same issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.2232 of 2015. The Division Bench considered the following judgments: (a) 2013 ACJ 2366 (New Delhi) [Bazaz Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ganapat Rai Sehgal] (b) 2013 ACJ 1437 [Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. A. Saravanan and another] (c) 2013 ACJ 2382 [National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Deepmala Geol] (d) 2013 ACJ 2609 [National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. R.K. Jain] (e) 2014 ACJ 1674 (Madras Bench) [National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. C.RAmesh Babu] (f) 1999 ACJ 10 (SC) [Helen C. Robello Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.,] (g) AIR 1995 SC 755 [R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd.,] (h) 2002 ACJ 1441 [United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan] After considering the above judgments, the Division Bench of this Court, by the judgment dated 06.10.2015, in C.M.A.No.2232 of 2015, held that if claimants have received reimbursement under the Mediclaim Policy, the same has to be deducted from the medical expenses claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act. In paragraph Nos.16, 18 and 19, it has held as follows: “16. As rightly contended by the appellant, the claim for medical expenses is not like LIC, where premium is paid by the insured, and on maturity, the sum assured under the policy is repaid with dividend to the assured, or in the case of death prior to maturity, paid to the legal representatives of the assured; and whereas, mediclaim or medical expenses are reimbursed to the surviving injured and to the legal representatives of the deceased, in case of death. Life insurance policy is by a contract of insurance is repayable in case of survival or death and that in case of mediclaim policy, reimbursement is made by the insurer. In the case of mediclaim, reimbursement of medical expenditure can be sought for, against the insurer of mediclaim policy, for the actual expenditure incurred, and if the said insurer reimburses the expenses incurred by the insured or the legal representatives of the deceased, then, the surviving victim or the legal representatives cannot seek for reimbursement of the very same expenditure from the tortfeasor or the insurer of the offending vehicle, as it would amount to double payment under the head 'medical expenditure'. ............... 18. ............... 18. Amounts received under the head, medical expenses or reimbursed, has to be set off, while estimating the actual monetary loss and consequently, the ultimate quantum of compensation. Even in Helen Rebello's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where the employer insurers his employee, as against injury or death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance on the happening of such incidence may be an amount liable for deduction. Thus, even in Helen Rebello's case (cited supra), a distinction between Life Insurance Policy and other Insurance Policy, taken by the employer for his employee, has been taken note of. When the injured has already been reimbursed by the employer of his son for the medical expenses incurred, can it be still contended that there was a pecuniary loss? Can it be claimed from the insurer of the offending vehicle, as if it was spent by him? and thus there was a monetary loss to be compensated. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the claimant/injured is entitled only to the amount spent and suffered as monetary loss. 19. In the case on hand, the injured has not incurred any monetary loss, as the employer of the son of the injured has paid the hospital and medical charges, under the policy of the employee. While that is the fact situation, the claim of the respondent/claimant under the head, medical expenses, would be an amount, which has not been expended by him. Though it is claimed that the employee pays a separate premium under the mediclaim policy and that, a contention can be made that it is separate contract with the insurer, not being the insurer of the tortfeasor, against whom a claim for compensation is made, but when the expenses incurred have been reimbursed, it cannot be said that the claimant has suffered any pecuniary loss on account of the expenses incurred for the injuries and treatment.” 15. In view of the above judgments, the amount granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is set aside. The amounts granted by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are confirmed. In view of the above judgments, the amount granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is set aside. The amounts granted by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: S. No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Medical expenses 10,03,800/- - Set aside 2. Future medical expenses 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Confirmed 3. Traveling expenses 50,000/- 30,000/- Reduced 4. Attendant charges 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed 5. Extra nourishment 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed 6. Loss of income 90,000/- 90,000/- Confirmed 7. Partial permanent disability 1,17,000/- 1,17,000/- Confirmed 8. Pain and sufferings 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Confirmed Total 17,60,800/- rounded off to Rs.17,61,000 7,37,000/- Reduced by Rs.10,24,000/- 16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.17,61,000/- is modified to Rs.7,37,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount, now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.195 of 2014. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount, now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The appellant-Transport Corporation is permitted to withdraw the excess amount, lying in the deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.195 of 2014, if any already deposited by them. It is made clear that if the 1st respondent has already withdrawn the award amount, the appellant-Transport Corporation is not entitled to recover the same from the 1st respondent. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.