High CourtsSingle Bench(1989) 08 P&H CK 0039

Rampat vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 25 August 1989 · Citation: (1990) 1 ACC 487

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Sodhi, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 372 words

S.S. Sodhi, J.—In an accident between a mule-cart and the Haryana Roadways bus HYM-114, the mule was killed while the cart sustained damage. This happened at about 1-30 P.M. on March 7,1983 on the Rewari-Delhi Road. The tribunal after holding that the accident had been caused due to the negligence of the bus-driver awarded Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for the damage to the cart and the loss of the mule.

2.

The claim in appeal here is for enhancement of the compensation for the mule killed in the accident.

3.

It was the contention of Mr. J.S. Duhan, counsel for the claimant that the price of the mule was Rs. 9,000/- and this was, therefore, the amount that deserved to be awarded as compensation for its loss. Reliance was in this behalf placed on the testimony of the claimant-P.W. 1 ,who deposed that he had purchased the mule for Rs. 9,000/- from Mange Ram Vide receipt exhibit C/l. To a similar effect is the testimony of P.W.7-Mange Ram as also P.W.2- Balbir Singh who too deposed that the mule cost Rs. 9,000/-.

4.

A reference to the receipt exhibit C/l would show that it bears no date and is not witnessed by any one. It merely purports to bear the thumb impression of the claimant-Ram Pat. On the face of it, it is a document which could have been prepared at any time. What is more, besides there being no date on it, Ram Pat could not say who had scribed it. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the Tribunal not relying upon it.

5.

Coming to the oral evidence regarding the value and price of the mule killed in the accident, it will be seen that there is merely the bald statement of interested witnesses that the price of the mule was Rs. 9,000/-. No corroborative evidence is forthcoming to show the price at which mules may have been bought and sold. Such being the state of evidence on record, no occasion is provided thereby for awarding any enhanced compensation.

6.

The Award of the tribunal is accordingly hereby up-held and affirmed and this appeal is thus dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.