KANNAMMAL Vs. N N SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant's lorry met with an accident as a result of which the lorry suffered considerable damage to the front right portion, including damage to the engine. THE lorry had to be left with the repairer for a period of 49 days

(2.) THE owner of the lorry had taken out a comprehensive policy. THE owner produced the bills before his insurer for a total of Rs. 78,275/-. THE insurer, however, paid only a sum of Rs. 22,023/- directly to the repairer.

(3.) THE evidence, which was firmly relied upon by the insurer before the Tribunal was an "Addendum Report", dated 19.12.1990, issued by one G.R. Raj. That document sets out that it is a copy. THE person who issued that report, viz., G.R. Raj, was not examined before the Tribunal. In that document which, as observed earlier, is a copy and is an addendum to a report which report had not been produced before the Tribunal, it is set out that the parts mentioned in that report were damaged and could not be repaired and required replacement. While making the calculation, a sum of Rs. 1,875/- had been deducted towards depreciation. THE person who issued the report not having been examined, the contents of that report remained unexplained.