ORDER : 1. Since both the appeals arise out of a common award, they are heard and decided together. 2. The instant appeals have been preferred against the award dated 26.4.2014 passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.94 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000 as compensation in favour of claimant Rajendra Kumar Sahu. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that at the time of accident, claimant Rajendra Kumar Sahu was 61 years old and after retirement he was giving tuition to children. On 16.6.2012 at about 12:30 noon, while he was coming home, a swift car bearing registration No.CG 04 HB 3726, which was being driven rashly and negligently, dashed him. As a result of the accident, he sustained injuries on his body and got hospitalised in Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. At that time, Rajat Gupta was the driver of the said offending car and Srikant Gupta was the registered owner of the said car. The said car was insured with New India Insurance Company Limited. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was submitted by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000. In their reply, the driver and the owner of the offending car pleaded that as the car was duly insured with New India Insurance Company Limited and the driver of the offending car was having a valid and effective driving licence, liability to pay the compensation would be upon the insurance company. It was further pleaded that the claimant was also responsible for the accident and, therefore, it is a case of contributory negligence. 4. The insurance company, in its reply, pleaded that at the time of accident the driver of the offending car was not having a valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted compensation of Rs.25,000 in favour of the claimant. Liability to pay the compensation is fastened only on the driver and the owner of the offending car as a breach of the insurance policy was found by the Tribunal. 6. 5. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted compensation of Rs.25,000 in favour of the claimant. Liability to pay the compensation is fastened only on the driver and the owner of the offending car as a breach of the insurance policy was found by the Tribunal. 6. The claimant has preferred Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.856 of 2014 on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the claimant is not entitled to get compensation as he has already received medi-claim amount from the insurance company. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the claimant has obtained medi-claim amount after payment of the premium, which is a different procedure. Therefore, the claimant is legally entitled for the said medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded him only Rs.5,000 towards attendant, nutritious diet and travelling expenses, which is on lower side. 7. The driver and the owner of the offending car have preferred Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.613 of 2014 on the ground that from the evidence adduced by them, it is well established that at the time of accident the driver of the offending car was going in the car along with his cousin Amit Gupta towards a school. At that time, the offending car was being driven by Amit Gupta, who possessed a valid driving licence. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there was a breach of the insurance policy is not in accordance with the evidence available on record. Thus, the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the insurance company from the liability of payment of the compensation. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the amount of medi-claim, which has been received by the claimant from the insurance company, is a pecuniary advantage which cannot be deducted from the compensation. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2018 SC 5034 and the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited v. Meenakshi Mann, MANU/PH/2878/2019 : (2020) 197 PLR 173. 9. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2018 SC 5034 and the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited v. Meenakshi Mann, MANU/PH/2878/2019 : (2020) 197 PLR 173. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the driver and the owner of the offending car submits that from the evidence adduced by them, it is well established that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending car was having a learner’s driving licence and at that time his cousin Amit Gupta was also sitting in the offending car and he also had a valid driving licence and the car was being driven under his instructions. Therefore, there was no breach of the insurance policy. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the evidence available on record. He submits that as there was a breach of the insurance policy, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company. 11. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal minutely. 12. As regards the compensation, before the Tribunal, the claimant had submitted bills total amounting to about Rs.79,000, which were spent in his medical treatment. In his Court statement, he himself admitted that he had obtained about Rs.80,000 – 82,000 from the insurance company as medi-claim. The witness of the insurance company, i.e., Kundan Shrawan also deposed that the amount of Rs.81,002 has been paid to the claimant as mediclaim. Since the claimant has already taken the medi-claim, this amount of expenditure of medical treatment has not been granted by the Tribunal. 13. Answering the question whether the amounts received by the claimant by way of provident fund, pension, life insurance policy, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits etc. are liable to be deducted from the compensation, the Supreme Court in (1999) 1 SCC 90 (Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation) held that these amounts have no co-relation with the compensation receivable by the claimant under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is held as under: “35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. It is held as under: “35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No corelation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured’s death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no corelation with the amount receivable under a stature occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any corelation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no corelation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no corelation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.” 14. Learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Royal Sundram case (supra) also observed as under: “8. As per the aforementioned judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, a person contributes his own salary towards life insurance policies and this payment is received finally when the policy matures. It has no concern with the motor accident claim. Compensation has to be assessed separately under the motor vehicles act. Reference was also made to another judgment of this Court in Manoj Kumar Yadav v. Azad and others MANU/PH/0710/2015 : (2015-3) 179 PLR 211, wherein it was held that even if the amount was directly paid by the insurance company to the hospital under medical policy, which was obtained by father of the claimant by way of payment of separate premium, the said amount cannot be deducted from the claim awarded under Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, after going through the judgments in the cases of Ishabbir Singh’s case (supra) and judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello (supra), no interference is required in the finding given by the Tribunal with respect to the compensation under the head of medical expenses despite the fact that the medical bills had been reimbursed as per medi claim policy. In view of all that has been discussed above, present appeal is hereby dismissed.” 15. Looking to the above law laid down by the Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello case (supra) and the observation made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Royal Sundram case (supra), the claimant is also entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.81,000 for his medical expenses which he had already received by way of medi-claim. Ordered accordingly. Looking to the above law laid down by the Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello case (supra) and the observation made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Royal Sundram case (supra), the claimant is also entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.81,000 for his medical expenses which he had already received by way of medi-claim. Ordered accordingly. 16. With regard to other compensation amount, in this case, from the evidence, it is established that the claimant was admitted in the hospital for about 9 days. His 3 ribs had fractured. His nose bone was also fractured. Looking to the above injuries, he would have required treatment in future also for which he would have visited hospital frequently and taken nutritious diet for a long period and also needed attendant for a long period. On this head, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000, which is on lower side. This amount is enhanced to Rs.25,000. The amount of Rs.20,000 awarded towards pain and suffering is also enhanced to Rs.40,000. Therefore, now, the claimant is entitled to get compensation as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount(Rs.) 1 For Medical Expenses 81,000 2 For Pain and Suffering 40,000 3 For Nutritious Diet, Attendant, Future Treatment and Transportation Charges 25,000 Total 1,46,000 17. Thus, the claimant is entitled to get Rs.1,46,000 in place of Rs.25,000. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,46,000 shall also carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of submission of the claim petition before the Tribunal till final realisation of the compensation. Ordered accordingly. 18. With regard to the liability, the Tribunal has fastened liability only on the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that there was a breach of the insurance policy. There is no dispute on the point that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having a learner’s driving licence. As stated by Witness No.1 of the insurance company, namely, Smt. Sushma Verma , A.G.-III of the office of the R.T.O. Raipur, at the time of driving the vehicle by a learner’s driving licence holder, a permanent driving licence holder is compulsorily required to sit along with him and a board of “L” is also compulsorily required to be shown on the vehicle during driving of the said vehicle. According to this witness, the necessary endorsement was also made in the learner’s driving licence (Ex.D4) held by the driver of the offending car. 19. The owner of the offending car Srikant Gupta examined himself before the Tribunal. In his statement recorded before the Tribunal, he stated that the offending car was being driven by Amit Gupta, who had possessed a valid driving licence at that time. He further deposed that at that time Rajat Gupta was also sitting in the offending car. But, from the record of the criminal case, it is established that the case was registered and a charge-sheet was filed against Rajat Gupta alleging that he was the driver of the offending car at the time of accident. In this case, Rajat Gupta did not examine himself nor the statement of Amit Gupta was recorded. If Amit Gupta was really driving the offending car and Rajat Gupta was also sitting in the said car, these two persons could be the best persons who could state that the offending car was being driven by Amit Gupta. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the offending car was being driven by Rajat Gupta, who, at that time, had possessed a learner’s driving licence. 20. Dealing with the issue, a Division Bench of this Court, in Smt. Mahrin Bai v. Santosh Sahu, Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.1058 of 2013, held on 3.7.2020 that as the driver of the offending vehicle, who was possessing a learner’s driving licence at the time of accident and not accompanied by the instructor beside him, there is a breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, in my considered view, in the instant case, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company. 21. Resultantly, Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.613 of 2014 preferred by the driver and the owner of the offending car is dismissed and Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.856 of 2014 preferred by the claimant is partly allowed to the extent shown above.