THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.1494 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.No.346 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Anantapur (for brevity ‘the Tribunal) by the order and decree, dated 14.12.2004, whereunder a sum of Rs.20,000 was awarded as compensation for the damages of the car in question, the claimant filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the ‘the Act’), seeking to enhance the quantum of compensation. The case of the claimant is that she is the owner of the car bearing No.9828 and that on 04.04.2002, she sent her car on personal work and when the car reached near Pedda Jalalpuram Village, at about, 4 pm., one lorry bearing No.AP-02- U-0134 came from the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said car, due to which, it got damaged partly. Hence, the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards the damages of the said car. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that though Ex.A-3-bills showing the amount incurred towards the repair of the said car as Rs.75,000/- and Ex.A-2-surveyor’s report, wherein it is assessed that the damage to the car is R.65,000/-, were filed, the Tribunal failed to consider the same and awarded a meager compensation of Rs.20,000/- and hence, prayed this Court to enhance the compensation. Learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance company vehemently contended that the damages caused to the car as per Ex.A-1-original certificate issued by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Singanamala does not tally with the damages caused to the said car as per Ex.A-2-Surveyor’s report and hence, no credence can be given to the said documents. Further, he contended that the Tribunal had already awarded just compensation which need not be interfered with in the present appeal. It is to be seen that there is any amount of variation as regards the damaged parts of the car, as elicited by Exs.A-1 and A-2. Though the bills in respect of the repair works done to the car are produced, the mechanic who repaired the said car by replacing the damaged parts with the new ones purchased under Ex.A-3 was not examined. Hence, there is any amount of suspicion as regards the validity of Ex.A-3-bills. More over, it is an admitted fact that the said car belongs to 1980 model and the said accident occurred on 04.04.2002, i.e., nearly after a period of about 22 years. But, P.W-3, who is the driver of the car, deposed that the said car is in a good condition. In view of the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation towards the damages of the said car to Rs.35,000/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the said O.P. till the date of realization. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, to the extent indicted above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 21st October 2010 dr