T. Rajani, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the claimant before the Court below, assailing the judgment of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa in OP. No. 285 of 2006, dated 12.10.2007, on the grounds that the court below did not award adequate compensation and did not consider the documentary evidence while deciding the issues and failed to consider the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, while awarding compensation. Heard both sides.

2. The claim was for the damages of the vehicle, which were sustained in a motor accident, which occurred on 21.12.2005. The accident involved two vehicles. The court below, considering that it is a case of head on collision, apportioned the negligence between the two vehicles equally and reducing the compensation of Rs. 61,070/- by 50%, it awarded Rs. 32,642/- as compensation to the claimant.

3. NEGUGENCE: A perusal of the judgment, under issue No. 1, which dealt with the aspect of negligence, shows that the court went by the singular fact of the accident being a head on collision and assumed negligence on the part of the vehicle of the claimant also. It observed that if PW 1 therein had driven the vehicle diligently, he would have avoided the accident. But the charge sheet, which is filed after due investigation, is only against the other vehicle. The court did not have any other basis to differ from the conclusion drawn in the charge sheet, except that it was a case of head on collision. The said reasoning of the court below does not seem to be sustainable, as, when the evidence brought before the court would point only towards the negligence of the other vehicle, there need not be any reason to make an assumption, more so, when no evidence is adduced by the respondent to disprove the fact that is established by the charge sheet.

The panchanama, Ex. A11, shows that damages were only to the Eicher van. A clue can be taken from that fact also that the negligence was on the part of the other vehicle. Hence, the judgment of the court below under issue No. 1, concluding negligence on the part of the drivers of the two vehicles, is set aside and it is held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Mahendra Bolero Jeep bearing No. AP 20F 5540.

4. COMPENSATION: As regards the quantum of compensation, the court below elaborately discussed about the evidence adduced in proof of the damages and expenses incurred for the repairs of the vehicle and arrived at the conclusion, which it has arrived at. The evidence of PW2 is that of a person running a workshop, where the vehicle of the claimant was repaired. According to his evidence, he took up the repairs of the vehicle. He noticed several damages and at the request of the claimant, he gave an estimation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The claimant purchased the spare parts as per requirement and delivered them to him. Thereafter, he completed the repairs within two months. He stated that he issued bills dated 25.01.2006 for Rs. 12,600/-, Rs. 2,400/- and Rs. 3,500/- respectively marked under Ex. A5 and the rest of the bills marked under Ex. A5 are stated to be the bills for purchase of spare parts. He concluded by saying that the claimant spent about Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages for purchase of spare parts and replacement of the damaged spare parts. He also explains that though he gave estimation for Rs. 2,50,000/-, the petitioner could not spend the amount for replacement of chasis and cabin and on his request, he repaired the vehicle partly and delivered the same.

5. The claimant, who was examined as PW 1, did not state anywhere in his evidence about the reasons for not getting the vehicle repaired totally. He also spoke about the estimate given by PW2. But however, the evidence of PW2 can be taken as proving the fact that all the damages that were seen by him were due to the accident. The damages that were stated by him are, (1) Chasis assembly was bent, (2) Front portion of the cabin was damaged, (