The expression 'damage to property' in Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is limited to the actual physical damage caused to the property and does not include consequential pecuniary losses such as loss of income.

M.P. Janaki Ammal and Company is the appellant herein.

2. The claim petition was filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, seeking for compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- for the damage caused to its vehicle in the accident, occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the Dindugul Kottampatti Transport, the first respondent herein.

3. The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 29,817.15 and directed the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company to pay the said amount to the claimant. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the quantum, the claimant has filed this appeal before this Court.

4. The claimant was doing Tourist Taxi business. The Tourist Van bearing registration No. TNR 9946 was belonging to them. On the early morning of 16-1-1987, one Murthy of Madurai, booked the said vehicle for the family trip to Madurai, Thekkadi, Suruli, etc. The vehicle had left at 5.45 a.m. When the vehicle reached near Upparpattivilakku at about 10.30 a.m. on the Theni to Cumbum Road, the bus bearing registration No. TNW 9594 came in the opposite direction with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the Van TNR. 9946.

As a result of the impact, the Van belonging to the appellant, got completely damaged. Some of the passengers travelled in the Van and the driver died at the spot. Therefore, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus.

5. The Van was kept at the workshop from 16-1-1987 to 11-5-1987. Therefore, towards the loss of income during that period and towards the expenditure incurred for the repairs, the claimant, in the claim petition, sought Rs. 1.70,000/- as compensation.

6. The owner of the bus, first respondent herein, remained ex parte . The insurance company, second respondent herein, filed a counter.

7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PW.1, Lakshmanan, the Manager was examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the respondent, no evidence was adduced.

8. On analysis of the materials available on record, the Tribunal held that the claimant would be entitled to only Rs. 29,817.15 towards the expenditure incurred for repairs and that it would not be entitled to any amount for the loss of income during the period when the vehicle was kept idle. This award is under challenge in this appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant would raise the following two contentions :—

“1. The Tribunal ought to have considered the two receipts marked as Ex. A1 series which shows that on 13-4-83, Rs. 28,000/- was paid as advance to the workshop and on 18-4-83, the balance amount of Rs. 29,817.15 was paid. But, the Tribunal accepted only one receipt i.e. for Rs. 29,817.15 and rejected the other receipt dated 13-4-83 on the ground that it was not an original one. Both the receipts are original. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to the entire amount of Rs. 57,817.15 i.e., (Rs. 29, 817.15 +Rs. 28,000).

2. The vehicle was kept idle for about 118 days during which period the repairs were rectified. The loss of income suffered by the claimant would also be taken to mean “damages to the property”. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount for that head also.”

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would resist the submission by stating that the claimant would not be entitled to any amount for the loss of income, as it would not include “the damages to the property”.

11. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions in regard to the first point urged by the counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that the Tribunal has committed a mistake in not taking into consideration of the original receipt dated 13-4-1983 by which it is shown that the claimant had paid Rs. 28,000/- to the repairing Workshop i.e. Cheema Autokrafts, towards advance. The Tribunal was under the misconception that the said receipt is not original and rejected the said claim. However, it awarded Rs. 29,817.15 on the ba