In A.P. Braganza (supra), the learned Single Judge held that though some amount had been received from his insurance company it would not create any estoppel against the appellant to recover the balance amount actually spent for the repairs of the damaged vehicle from the respondent. Besides, the insurance company had not established the "knock for knock" agreement by any evidence and therefore the learned Tribunal was in error to hold that the appellant was not entitled to claim the balance amount from the respondent and ultimately allowed the appeal.
24. In Sebastian Jacob (supra), the claimant had accepted that he had settled the matter and received the money in respect of the jeep in question and there was no scope for granting a further relief. In the factual matrix it was observed that the claimant had claimed the whole amount and not disputed the claim. The High Court did not appear to have considered this aspect in the proper perspective and therefore set aside the order of the High Court and remitted the matter for a fresh consideration. It however supports the contention of Shri R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel for the claimant that having raised a claim against his insurer, the claimant was not debarred from making a claim under the statutory liability against the tortfeasor, i.e. the insurer of the offending vehicle in question.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
First Appeal No. 203 of 2009
Decided On: 09.08.2018
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Priyolkar and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Nutan D. Sardessai, J.
Citation: 2019(1) MHLJ 618
