High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
SATYA NARAYAN v JAGDISH CHANDRA & ORS. - CMA Case No. 863 of 2007  RD-RJ 3547 (24 July 2007)
(Satyanarain Vs. Jagdish Chandra & ors.)
DATE OF ORDER:- 24.07.2007
HON'BLE MR. DINESH MAHESHWARI,J.
Mr.Vinay Jain, for the appellant.
This appeal has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle involved in accident being aggrieved of the award dated 18.02.2006 made by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Bhilwara in Claim Case No. 304/2004 whereby the claimant-respondent No.1 has been awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.22,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application for the property damage suffered by him.
The claimant-respondent No.1 claimed compensation against the owner (appellant), driver and insurer of a bus bearing registration No.RJ 09/P 0341 with the submissions that on 30.10.2002 at about 8.30 a.m. the said bus intruded into his shop of watch repairs and selling. The claimant sought compensation in the sum of Rs.54,200/- while stating a loss of Rs.22,000/- to the structure of the shop, Rs.2,500/- towards 15 days' loss of income, Rs.4,000/- towards loss of watches and equipments, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, and Rs.700/- towards the visit of architect. The claimant submitted that while he was sweeping clean his shop, suddenly the non-applicant No.2 driver brought the said bus rashly and negligently and intruded into his shop causing extensive property damage. The owner and driver of the bus, while stating general denial of claim averments alleged that the bus was being driven with caution on its side and that the claimant had encroached over the place outside his shop and there was no fault in the driver of the bus. The insurer of vehicle, while again stating general denial of claim averments alleged that there was no negligence in the bus driver and the accident occurred for the other people on the road not giving side despite blowing of horn. The insurer also alleged contributory negligence of the claimant for encroaching on the road and further submitted that in any case its liability was limited to Rs.6,000/- under the insurance policy.
After framing of issues, the claimant examined himself as AW-1 and produced documentary evidence Ex.1 to Ex.9.
No evidence was adduced by the non-applicants.
With reference to the evidence on record, the Tribunal has found proved the fact that the said bus belonging to the appellant caused accident for its negligent driving by the non-applicant no.2; and the accident resulted in causing damage to the property of the claimant.
For quantification of compensation, the Tribunal has referred to the statement of claimant Jagdish Chandra that because of the accident, the walls, roof etc. of his shop were damaged; the showcase of his shop was broken; and watches were also damaged. The Tribunal has also referred to the surveyor's report indicating property loss to the tune of
Rs.22,000/-; and while allowing compensation in this sum of
Rs.22,000/- has restricted the liability of the insurer at
Rs.6,000/- with reference to Section 147 (2) (b) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
The only ground urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal is that the claimant stated approximate loss at
Rs. 2,500/- in the FIR and, therefore, the assertion of the loss at Rs. 22,000/- with reference to the surveyor's report could not have been accepted. Learned counsel submitted that the quantum of loss as suggested by the claimant is even not reasonably proportionate to that stated in the FIR.
Having perused the record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the submissions as made on behalf of the appellant remains hollow and cannot be accepted. It is true that in the FIR (Ex. 1) a figure in the numerals '2500' appears to have been recorded but in the same FIR, the police has noted the statement made by the informant on further questioning that the extent of damage was of about
Rs.25,000/- in the following words.
" & , ( *
" 25 " "
In the estimate of repairing of shop in question (Ex.8), details of the requisite repairs are available that appears to be of substantial structural work including masonary, cement- plaster, electricity work etc. The said estimate is apart from the damage to the showcase and to the goods including watches. With the kind of incident alleged, it does not appear reasonable to believe that the extent of damage was of
Rs.2,500/- only. Noteworthy it is that the accident occurred at 8.30 a.m. and the said FIR was recorded at 9.00 a.m. at the scene of incident. Possibility of some accidental slip or omission in scribing of the amount of damage in numerals cannot be ruled out. The claimant had specified the extent of damage at Rs.25,000/- on further questioning by the police and there appears no reason to take the view that the claimant would be entitled for compensation only in the sum of
Rs.2,500/- for such figures being stated in the body of FIR.
Yet further, noteworthy it is that the claimant has categorically stated the extent of damage in his affidavit in evidence. The appellant has chosen not to even cross- examine him. Then, there is no evidence in rebuttal at all.
In view of unrebutted testimony of the claimant with corroborative evidence, if the Tribunal has found him entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.22,000/-, the award in question cannot be said to be suffering from such error of law or facts that requires interference in appeal.
In the ultimate analysis, the award on its quantification of compensation appears to be rather moderate and calls for no interference at the instance of the appellant.
The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. arti
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.