AMAR SINGH Vs. RANBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal FAO No. 1832 of 1999 adverts to a situation when a TATA-407 had been badly damaged and the Tribunal had awarded compensation towards damages at Rs. 50,000/-. The grievance of the claimant was that the assessment of damages had not been properly done. PW5 Shiv Chander Khattar who was an approved surveyor of the Government of India had taken photographs of the vehicle with the damages and he had assessed the loss to the vehicle at Rs. 1,76,773/-. The photographs were filed as Ex.P1 to P15 with the respective negatives and the report had been filed as Ex.PL. The estimate of labour charges had also been given to the owner which was filed as Ex.PE. In the cross examination it was elicited that at the time of its inspection that same Had got dismantled by the owner himself by some mechanic and he did not know whether the same vehicle had been surveyed by another surveyor. An attempt was, therefore, to show that the claimant must have done to make the accident seem worse than what really it was by causing dismantling of the vehicle. Ideally, no dismantling must have been undertaken before the surveyor was brought to the place or without serving a notice on the Delhi Transport Corporation to depute their own surveyor. But still I will not make that to be so formidable an error to subject the claim to awarding merely Rs. 50,000/-. The award is arbitrary in every sense and there was no counter evidence provided as to what could have been the loss and when it was not elicited in evidence as to what parts could have been removed which had not been involved in the accident. I would go with the report of the surveyor himself and provide for damages at Rs. 1,70,000/-.

(2.) The claimant also makes a plea that the vehicle had not been run for nearly 5 months and the income which the claimant was earning by the use of the vehicle had been deprived to the owner. The claim for damages for loss to property in the manner contemplated under Section 165(i) and Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be only the actual damages to the property and cannot also include the resultant loss by the non-user of the vehicle. This aspect has been considered by several Courts and particularly our own Court has held in Ved Parkash Sethi v. Musaffir Tansport Corporation,1974 ACJ 367, and B.S. Nath v. Bachan Singh, 1971 ACJ 37, that "a Claims Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss resulting from non-user of the vehicle and the Tribunal will have jurisdiction only to award compensation for the actual damages to the vehicles themselves". Every other Court in India has also approached the issue in the same fashion. I do not, therefore, find a scope for entertaining a plea for the resultant loss of income arising by the damage to the property as claimable before the Tribunal.

(3.) There shall be consequently enhancement of compensation in the manner indicated above and the amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.