Abdul Gafar vs Shankar and Others

S. Sujatha, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

It transpires that, on 12.06.2007 at 16.40 hours, the appellant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. KA-22/W-5507 from Bendigeri towards Hirebagewadi following the traffic rules. It is alleged that, one Bajaj Tempo Trax Cruiser bearing No. KA-48/M-9293 came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction, dashed to the motorcycle in which the appellant was travelling. Due to the said accident, the appellant fell down and sustained injuries and the motorcycle was badly damaged. The claimant/appellant has filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 26,401/- towards the damage of the vehicle. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 6,300/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant is before this Court.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence lead by the appellant in right perspective and awarded paltry sum of Rs. 6,300/- towards damage of the motorcycle, which necessarily requires interference by this Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company refuted the contentions raised by the appellant and argued that, Ex. P6-receipt placed by the appellant is not commensurate with Ex. P4-MV report, wherein 9 damages said to have been occurred to the motorcycle in the accident, which are:

"i) Head light damages,

ii) Front fork/rim damaged,

iii) Front mudguard damaged,

iv) Crush guard damaged,

v) Steering handle damaged,

vi) Left side box damaged,

vii) Front shock observer broken,

viii) Right foot rest damaged,

ix) Dash board damaged."

It is contended that in view of these inconsistencies in Exs.P4 and P6, coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 who is the representative of the service centre, who has categorically stated that the repair charges for the damage as per Ex. P4 would incur Rs. 3,600/- and Rs. 300/- towards labour charges. In view of this statement of P.W.2, the Tribunal considered the case and awarded compensation of Rs. 6,300/-, besides awarding compensation of Rs. 1,000/- towards idle charges, which cannot be found fault with.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is noticed that Ex. P6 is the tax invoice produced by the appellant to claim the service charges of the vehicle involved in the accident claiming Rs. 26,401/-. However, Ex. P4-MV report clearly establishes that there were 9 damages, which were very much apparent from Ex. P4. However, the claim made by the appellant is not only relating to the damages caused in the accident. However, in view of the statement made by the representative of service centre and further admission made by the appellant himself that he has not chosen to file any survey report, normally, the insurance company used to take photographs and the vehicle will be surveyed, which is not taken by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal has determined the repair and service charges at Rs. 6,300/-. However, it is also noticed that no person would spend Rs. 26,401/- to get his old vehicle repaired. However, on the plea raised by the appellant that in view of the vehicle now being damaged, he made an alternative arrangement for another vehicle, on that count, towards idle charges, Rs. 1,000/- is awarded. Even though no survey report is produced by the appellant to establish that survey has been conducted by the insurance company, the evidence adduced by P.W.1-Claimant cannot be totally discarded, giving some credence to certain extent, the Award has to be modified. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 10,000/- towards damages caused to the vehicle in the accident relating to Ex. P4.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and the appellant is at liberty to withdraw the same.