Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 105
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.MANIKUMAR
S.RAJENDRA RAO - Appellant
Versus
G.VANAJA - Respondent
Decided On : 01/29/2007
C. M. A. 433 Of 2001
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle – Accidents – Dashed against his lorry – Rash and negligent manner – Compensation – Accident occurred when the appellant was proceeding towards Krishnagiri in a lorry another lorry owned by first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his lorry and caused heavy damages to lorry – Lorry owned by the first respondent is insured with the second respondent, Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Appellant claimed compensation of as damage to property – Second respondent-Insurance company resisted the claim, contending inter alia that the accident did not occur in manner set out in claim petition – They disputed the driving licence of appellant – Held, Though appellant/claimant deposed that he had spent considerable amount for repairing vehicle, he has failed to examine mechanic, who repaired vehicle – Mere production of bills alone is not sufficient to prove that repairs have been rectified and there was replacement of spare parts – If mechanic is examined, insurer will have an opportunity to cross examine him with reference to Motor Vehicles Inspectors report and surveyors report – In present case, RW. 1, Surveyor has deposed that the he had examined mechanic, who repaired vehicle and noted down spare parts used in vehicle, for ascertaining damages – RW. 1 is a Mechanical Engineer with Diploma in Engineering, who has considerable experience in assessing damage to vehicle – There is no reason to reject his oral testimony of a qualified surveyor and his report, Ex. B2. The evidentiary value of the Surveyors report cannot be brushed aside, in absence of acceptable evidence on side of appellant/claimant – Court not find any illegality in order of Tribunal, in assessing damages to property – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are as follows: On 20. 10. 1995 at about 11. 00 a. m. , when the appellant was proceeding towards Krishnagiri in a lorry bearing registration No. TCG 3400, another lorry bearing Registration No. TN-31-1921, owned by the first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his lorry and caused heavy damages to the lorry. The lorry owned by the first respondent is insured with the second respondent, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damage to the property.
( 3 ) THE Second respondent-Insurance company resisted the claim, contending inter alia that the accident did not occur in the manner set out in the claim petition. They disputed the driving licence of the appellant.
( 4 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P. W. 1. P. W. 2 is the driver of his vehicle. Ex. P1 - First Information Report dated 20. 10. 1995, Ex. P2 Motor Vehicles Inspection Report; Ex. P3 Copy of the Policy and Ex. P4 - Bills were marked on the side of the appellant. On behalf of the respondents, The Surveyor, who assessed the damage to the vehicle, was examined as RW. 1 and Ex. B1 Judgment copy in O. S. No. 5 of 1998 and Ex. B2 Motor Vehicles Inspection Final Report dated 16. 01. 1996 were marked.
( 5 ) ON consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the driver of the first respondent was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 25,955/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
( 6 ) HEARD Mr. P. Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Varadhakamaraj for Mr. S. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 and Exs. P1 to P4 and awarded suitable compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in relying upon the evidence of RW. 1, Surveyor and Ex. B2, his report, in awarding compensation.
( 8 ) PER contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the vehicle was registered in the year 1986 and that the valuation was properly done by RW. 1, Surveyor. He further submitted that all the defects pointed out in Ex. B2, Surveyor's report and vouchers submitted by the owner of the vehicle have been properly considered by the Tribunal. The award is just and reasonable compensation and does not warrant interference.
( 9 ) PW. 1 has deposed that the vehicle's mirror, bumber, main axle, spring plate, side body have been damaged. In Ex. P3, Motor Vehicles Inspection report, following parts were noted as unfit for ordinary use.
"front Cabin, windscreen glass (2), side glass, side door, radiator, one set bumper, front main axle, damaged chassis to be checked for bent, steering (sic) box damaged, Dash board, bonnet, Diesel tank damage. "
The appellant also produced Ex. P4, bills and vouchers in support of his and contended that he had incurred considerable expenses for the purchase of spare parts. But the appellant has not produced the damage parts of the vehicle before the Court.
( 10 ) EX. B2, dated 16. 01. 1996 is the final report issued by RW. 1, Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company. In Annexure 2 of the report, he has given a brief description about the damages caused to the vehicle. It is clearly mentioned in the report that there was damage to cabin, rear body, chassis assembly, cooling system, main axle assembly, steering box assembly and suspension assembly. The surveyor also included the labour charges for the mechanic, value of the parts and allowed costs after depreciation. He assessed the damages to the vehicle at Rs. 28,324/- and after de
