( 1 ) ). THE dissatisfied defendant-Insurance Company is the appellant. The respondent laid the suit to recover Rs. 61,000/- comprised of Rs. 40,000/- towards repairs and replacements for the damage caused to the motor vehicle AAT-2545, in an accident occurred on March 30, 1976 and Rs. 21,000/- towards loss of profits during the interregnum. The trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-towards repairs and replacements but disallowed the rest of the claim.

( 2 ) ). The facts in a nutshell are that the respondent is the owner of the motor vehicle of 1963 model bearing AAT 2545. It was purchased by K. K. Swamy from the A. P. State Road Transport Corporation during the year 1973 from whom the respondent purchased for Rs. 35,000/ -. It was insured with the appellant for a maximum liability of Rs. 40,000/ -. It sustained extensive damage in the accident and the respondent intimated the appellant of the estimated damage under Ex. B-1 and thereafter the appellant s valuer, D. W 1 submitted his report Ex. B-11 and ultimately recommended to pay a sum of Rs. 9,242 - in his estimate Ex. B-2 which was offered to be paid to the respondent. Disagreeing with the offer and relying upon the contract, Ex. A-1, the respondent laid the suit for the recovery thereof. The appellant repudiated the liability mainly relying upon the report Ex B-11 and the estimate Ex B-2 of D. W. 1 After framing the appropriate issues and adduction of evidence by the parties, the trial court accepted the case of the respondent with respect to the estimate of the damages and awarded the decree impugned.

( 3 ) SRI J. V Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the lower Court did not keep in view the correct principles to assess damages. In a case of indemnification by the appellant, the burden lies on the respondent to establish conclusively as to what is the value of the vehicle as on the date of the accident and what is its value after damages. The estimation thereof has got to be made and the resultant value would be the loss actually suffered and it would be the measure of damages. The respondent made no such attempt entailing with dismissal of the suit in toto. Alternatively he contended that the price list Ex. A-9 given by the salesman in Pioneer Automobiles, Guntur does not reflect the actual prevailing prices of parts or accessories. It was given on the date on which P. W. 1 was being examined viz. , July 18, 1977 Therefore, even the prices of the articles were not given. The estimate given by P. W 1 is highly exorbitant and inflated denuding to place reliance thereon. He also contended that the entire value cannot be taken since as a result of replacement with new articles, the value of the vehicle is being increased and, therefore, one-third thereof has to be deducted. He also contended that the report, Ex. B-11 and the estimate, Ex. B2 furnished by D. W. 1 and the estimate, Ex. B-3 furnished by D. W. 1, the surveyor are authenticated ones. D. W. 1 is not only representing the appellant but also other nationalised companies. He is a disinterested witness. His estimate is authentic and correct method to determine the loss. The trial Court did not consider this case from the above perspectives.

( 4 ) SRI S. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent resisted it contending that after purchasing the vehicle in the year 1973, the respondent made extensive repairs by replacing with new parts and has been in use till the date of accident. He insured the vehicle for Rs. 40,000/- and that is the measure of damages which he claims in the event of an accident to recover from the appellant-Company; In Ex. B-1, the estimate by P. W. 1, he mentioned the estimate of the repairs and the articles to be replaced and he did not mention the prices thereof, but the prices have been mentioned in the price list, Ex. A-9 given by P. W. 4. A Motor Vehicles Inspector was appointed as Commissioner by the Court at the i