Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 345
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
S. Rajendra Rao
Versus
G. Vanaja & Another
C.M.A.No.433 of 2001
Decided On : 29-01-2007
The evidentiary value of the surveyor's report and the necessity of sufficient evidence to support claimed damages.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 - Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64VB - The court discussed the evidence presented by the claimant and the insurance company, the role of the surveyor in assessing damages to the vehicle, and the necessity of examining the mechanic who repaired the vehicle. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence provided by the surveyor and the lack of sufficient evidence from the claimant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant claimed compensation for damages to his lorry caused by a collision with another lorry. The Tribunal found the driver of the other lorry responsible and awarded compensation of Rs.25,955/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming the awarded compensation and dismissing the appeal.
Issues: Dispute over the occurrence of the accident, valuation of damages, and sufficiency of evidence presented by the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence provided by the surveyor and the lack of sufficient evidence from the claimant to support the claimed damages.
Final Decision: The award of compensation was confirmed, and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed with no costs.
Not satisfied with award dated 012. 1999 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.837 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Heard Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Varadhakamaraj for Mr. S. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
8. 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.
9. 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, Surveyors 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.
10. PW.1 has deposed that the vehicles 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.
11. 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 deducting the amounts towards policy, salvage value of the materials and
