IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.168 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision:10.02.2011 Mukhtiar Singh ....Appellant versus Pawan Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for damage to a tractor where the Tribunal had awarded Rs.5,000/- as damages. The damage to a tractor in an accident is an admitted fact. The issue is what was the extent of damage and what had been the cost of repairs. The criminal court records, which had been summoned, showed that the tyre had burst and the tube had also been damaged; the gear box had been damaged, and the tyre rim had also been damaged. The evidence through a tractor repairer was that he purchased the spare parts FAO No.168 of 1994 (O&M) - 2 - for Rs.20,000/- from the Escorts office at Rohtak. The purchase receipt had not been filed before the Court. The learned counsel seeks to contend that although the documents had not been filed, the Court must have taken note of the fact that the repairs had been effected to the extent to which the witness spoken. There was not even a consistent case with reference to the actual amount spent for repairs. The claimant himself would state that he had spent Rs.60,000/- while his brother would state that the repairs were effected for Rs.50,000/-. With such a poor quality of evidence, it was still not probably justified that the Tribunal had provided for only Rs.5,000/-, when the fact remained that there had been some damage to the vehicle. Courts cannot be expected to deliver judgments on what the parties or counsel personally know of what would have been the cost of repairs. I am prepared to accommodate the claim for other sum of Rs.10,000/-, not on any acceptable evidence but by a judicial conviction that it deserved to accommodate a plea made that it would have been the minimum amount that would have been spent in a case of damage to the vehicle and damage to the tyre and tube. 2. The counsel for the Insurance Company pleads for restriction of liability to Rs.6,000/-. As a damage to a third party, I have seen through the terms of the policy, the column for limits of liability is not filled up and it says, it shall be as per Section II-I(i) in respect of any one claim arising out of one event. Section II-I(i) relating to the liability to a third party states that subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company would indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of a motor FAO No.168 of 1994 (O&M) - 3 - vehicle against all sums including the claimant's cost and expenses.......”. It does not cast any restriction of liability to Rs.6,000/- as contended by the insurer. 3. The liability shall be on the Insurance Company for the entire amount as determined by this Court with interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.02.2011 sanjeev