AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Puneet Gupta, J
The matter is taken up for final consideration. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are deemed to have been served in the appeal but failed to appear in the case.
The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramban vide dated 29.06.2013 awarded compensation in favour of the respondent herein, Parveen Chand, to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs along with pendentelite and future interest @ 7% per annum till realization. The grievance raised by the appellant-Insurance Company in the appeal is that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts as per record and has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,40,000/- on account of damage to the goods without any formal proof of the same. It is also pleaded that the claim petition does not give necessary bifurcation of the loss allegedly caused to the shop and the goods respectively. The learned counsel for the appellant has indeed argued the appeal as per the averments contained in the appeal.
The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has appeared and argued the matter. The learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as per the evidence that was brought on record by the parties. Infact the Tribunal should have granted more compensation to the claimant than the one awarded by the Tribunal as the claimant had suffered huge loss as the shop and the goods lying therein stood damaged due to the incident which took place on 15.05.2012.
The record of the Tribunal is before the court for perusal.
The alleged rash and negligent driving of the Truck by Nazir Ahmed Beigh resulted into ramming of the vehicle (Truck) into the shopping complex of the petitioner as a result the damage was caused to the complex as well as to the goods lying therein.
The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments did not dispute the damage caused to the shopping complex of the claimant to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- as the assessment had been done by the AEE PWD (R&B) Sub-Division, Batote. The Tribunal has also relied upon the report prepared by the PWD department qua the damage caused to the shop of the claimant whereby the damage to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- was assessed. To that extent therefore no dispute remains with regard to the loss suffered by the claimant as far as the shopping complex is concerned.
The point of controversy for all practical purposes pertains to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards the loss caused to the goods lying in the shopping complex. The Tribunal has relied upon the statements of Mohd. Firdous, Sanjay Kumar and Maqbool Hussain in addition to the statement of the claimant in this regard. The Tribunal has also taken into account on bills/cash memos which are brought on record while assessing the compensation. The compensation on account of damages to the goods which were allegedly lying and got destroyed or damaged due to the accident cannot be awarded on mere oral statements of the witnesses. There has to be some cogent material on record qua the goods lying in the premises and the damage caused to the goods. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claim petition did not bifurcate the damages caused to the shop and the goods if any lying in the shop at the time of accident and therefore cannot claim damages on account of the loss of goods, if any, lying in the shop. No doubt the claimant in his statement has mentioned that the claimant had suffered loss of about Rs.8 lacs yet the same cannot be the only basis to award compensation to the claimants. PWs-Sanjay Kumar and Mohd. Firdous have referred to the goods that had been supplied by them and the cash memos which are on the file. The record of the Tribunal, however, reveals that cash memos of different dates ranging from 01.11.2010 till 04.05.2012 have been placed on record. Even if the same are to be taken into account keeping in view the nature of the goods that were supplied to the claimant it can be well imagined that some of the goods must have been sold out or consumed by the time the accident took place. The cash memos referred to certain eatable items like rice, sugar, oil, ghee which are sold to the claimant even more than a year back also before the accident took place. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and certain guess that may be infused in such like case the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of loss of goods to the tune of Rs.5,40,000/- is on a higher side.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation on account of loss of goods is assessed to the tune of Rs.4,40,000/-. Thus, the total compensation to which the respondent-claimant is entitled to on account of loss suffered by the shop and the goods comes to Rs.2,60,000/- + Rs.4,40,000 = Rs. 7,00,000/-.
The appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent-claimant and due from the appellant herein is modified from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- along with the interest as granted by the Tribunal.
Disposed of.