IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH [20TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CMA No.3752 of 2002 Between: National Institute of Nutrition, rep. by its Director in charge, Hyderabad … Appellant And: G Chittaiah & 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CMA No.3752 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.03.1999 in OP No.80 of 1991 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad [for short ‘the Tribunal’] wherein, the claim of the appellant for compensation was allowed in part awarding a sum of Rs.43,852/- with proportionate costs and interest at 12% per annum. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer. Perused the record. 3. The appellant filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.72,500/- towards damages caused to the vehicle i.e., jeep which was involved in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.01.1995. According to the claimant, the jeep bearing No.AIY 3686 met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 10 T 6678 by its driver near St. Anns School, Tarnaka, resulting in damage to the jeep to a tune of Rs.62,500/-. 4. The owner of the lorry remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter opposing the claim. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced by the 2nd respondent, but Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.43,852/- towards damages. Not satisfied with the award, the claimant preferred the present appeal. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the value of the body of the jeep, which was newly purchased, is a sum of Rs.38,680/- and the same was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal disallowed the claim in that regard on the ground that the bill pertaining to purchase of the body was not produced and only proforma invoice Ex.A.5 was produced. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed the bill dated 31.05.1999 showing the purchase of the body at Rs.38,680/- by way of additional evidence in MA CMA MP No.5598 of 2008 and the said petition was ordered and the said document was received as additional evidence and marked as Ex.A.7. In view of the additional evidence adduced by the claimant under Ex.A.7 bill, the amount covered therein towards cost of the body of the jeep also needs to be taken into consideration while estimating the loss. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- insurer would submit that 1/3rd cost thereof needs to be deducted towards value of the old body as held in ‘Ch. Jagdeswar vs. S. Rajaiah[1]’. Deducting 1/3rd thereof, the value of the body purchased can be taken in a sum of Rs.25,786/-. The claimant is therefore held entitled for the said amount of Rs.25,786/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly by enhancing compensation by Rs.25,786/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal, till the date of realisation. 7. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 20.11.2009 bss [1] 1986(1) ALT 105