J U D G M E N T

The appellant was the petitioner in O.P .(MV)

No.160/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondent in the appeal were the respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal. The appellant has not impleaded the respondents 4 to 6 before the Tribunal on the ground that they are unnecessary parties in the appeal. Thus, the parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming damages caused to his car bearing registration No.KL-6/9390. It was his case that, on

16.07.2004, while the petitioner was travelling in his car behind a lorry bearing registration No.KL-7/X-

1490(lorry), driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the second respondent applied sudden brake. The petitioner's car hit behind the lorry. Consequently, a tipper lorry bearing registration

No.KL-8/AA-9667(tipper lorry) hit on the rear portion of the petitioner’s car. The petitioner's car was severely damaged. The tipper lorry was driven by the fifth respondent. The two lorries were owned by the respondents 1 and 4 and insured with the respondents 3 and 6. Hence, the petitioner claimed damages to the tune of Rs.1,17,010/- from the respondents.

3. The respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 did not contest the proceeding and were set ex parte .

4. The third respondent had filed a written statement admitting that the lorry had a valid insurance coverage. However, it was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner.

5. The sixth respondent had filed a written statement admitting that the tipper lorry had a valid insurance coverage. The sixth respondent also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent.

6. The petitioner produced and marked Exts.A1

to A5 in evidence. The third respondent produced

Ext.B1 insurance policy in evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, especially Ext.A4 survey report, allowed the claim petition in part by awarding the petitioner an amount of Rs.50,000/- plus the surveyor’s charges of Rs.2,000/-, totaling to an amount of Rs.52,000/- to be recovered from the third respondent.

8. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.

9. Heard; Sri. P .V . Baby, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri. K.Sandesh Raja, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-insurer.

10. The point that emanates for consideration in the appeal is whether the damages awarded is reasonable and just?

11. The specific case of the petitioner in the claim petition was that his vehicle was damaged in the accident that happened on 16.07.2004, due to the negligence of the drivers of the two lorries. In order to corroborate the pleadings, the petitioner produced

Ext.A4 survey report. Even though the petitioner did not examine the Surveyor, the Tribunal accepted and took Ext.A4 on its face value, and awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages plus Rs.2,000/-

towards the surveyor’s charges.

12. It is well settled, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Joseph v. Venkita Rao [2016(1) KLT

802], in a claim for damages, the onus of proof is on the petitioner to prove the damages incurred by him.

13. In Jaya v. Shaji [2014 (1) KLT 31] this Court has held that the mere production of a survey report is insufficient to sustain a claim for damages, unless the surveyor’s report is proved through the Surveyor.

14. The petitioner should consider himself to be

fortunate because, the Tribunal has accepted Ext.A4 without corroboration, and without the petitione