This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging

the

judgment

and

award

dated

19.06.2013

passed

in

MVC.No.390/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal and I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore (8the

Tribunal9 for short).

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties.

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that on account of

the accident between the lorry and the bus, bus was damaged

and hence, made the claim towards the damages as well as

idling charges. The Tribunal after considering both the oral and

documentary evidence, considered the repair charges of

Rs.2,15,746/- and after deducting an amount of Rs.1,29,000/-

with regard to the difference amount is concerned, awarded an

3

amount of Rs.86,746/- towards damages and also considering

the idling of vehicle for a period of 50 days, awarded an amount

of Rs.3,75,000/- hence, the present appeal is filed by the

Insurance Company questioning the loss of income assessed to

the tune of Rs.3,75,000/-.

4.

The counsel appearing for the appellant would

vehemently contend that the very assessment made by the

Tribunal is erroneous by taking the income of Rs.75,000/- per

day and awarding of the amount of Rs.3,75,000/- towards loss

of income during the idle period of 50 days is unwarranted and

not in accordance with law. The counsel would submit that the

Tribunal has failed to take note of the damages caused to the

bus and keeping the vehicle idle for a period of 50 days and it is

nothing but an attempt to make wrongful gain. Hence, it

requires interference.

5.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the KSRTC would

contend that the Tribunal in detail discussed about the nature of

damages caused to the bus and in paragraph No.12 extracted

the damages caused to the bus. The Tribunal discussed in detail

with regard to the income is concerned in paragraph No.13 and

4

in paragraph No.14 discussed regarding total cost spent for

repair and receiving an amount of Rs.1,29,000/- and after

deducting the said amount directed to pay Rs.86,746/-. The

learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that in

paragraph Nos.15 and 16 discussed in detail and taken the

income of Rs.7,500/- per day and assessed the loss of income

during the idle period and hence it does not require interference

of this Court.

6.

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

on perusal of the material available on record, the appeal is only

in respect of questioning the loss of income awarded to the tune

of Rs.3,75,000/-. The records discloses that out of the expenses

for repair Rs.2,15,746/-, an amount of Rs.1,29,000/- was

received and difference amount of Rs.86,676/- was awarded.

Having considered the nature of damages found in the IMV

report, which is also discussed in paragraph No.12, it discloses

that front bumper, dashboard, and wind pipe was damaged and

also the driver side door was damaged. The bus was idle for a

period of 50 days and the same was repaired in the garage.

When such being the material available on record, taking the

5

loss of income for a period of 45 days in terms of Ex.P6

sustainable.

7.

Having

considered

the

reasons

mentioned

in

paragraph Nos.16 and 17, the cost in general is to the extent of

Rs.32/- per day, out of earning of Rs.50/- per day, but no profit

sheet is placed before the Tribunal with regard to the bus which

was used in the previous period. The Tribunal took the income

earned from the said bus as Rs.7,500/- per day and there is no

basis for considering the income of Rs.7,500/- per day. Whether

it is profit per day from the use of the said bus after deducting

other expenses or not, nothing is mentioned and only a guess

work was made by the Tribunal in paragraph No.18. It is

observed in paragraph No.17 that no documents are produced to

show that as to what was the actual income to be earned during

the said period and net income shown by the Corporation and

the same is not supported by other documents and taken the

average inc