F.A.O NO. 1057 OF 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O NO. 1057 OF 1993 DECIDED ON : 04.02.2010 Union of India ...Appellant versus Balbir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Puneet Bassi, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is an appeal preferred by Union of India for enhancement of compensation in respect of damage to government Jeep No. DDD-3155 on account of accident. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 01.04.1988 at about 12:50 hours, Santokh Singh Lakha, Commandant, Bn CRPF along with other persons was travelling in Jeep No. DDD-3155. At about 13:00 hours when the Jeep reached the curve near Badurukhan village which is about ½ km from unit HQ of the 26th Bq, CRPF, a truck bearing No. PUM-4527 came from Barnala side on a very high speed and struck against the Jeep, resulting in extensive damage to the said Jeep. FIR No.57 dated 01.04.1988 under Sections 279/337/338/427 IPC F.A.O NO. 1057 OF 1993 -2- was registered on the basis of statement of L/Nk G. K. Natlekar. In reply, the claim petition was resisted. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal : 1) Whether Jeep No. DDD-3155 was damaged on 01.04.1988 as a rash and negligent driving of Truck No. PUM-4527 by respondent Balbir Singh as pleaded in para no. 25 of the claim petition ? OPP 2) If Issue No.1 is proved, whether Union of India is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP 3) Whether respondent Balbir Singh was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident, if so, its effect ? OPP 4) Relief. The learned Tribunal returned the findings on Issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and held that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. Regarding Issue No.2, it was held that the claimant is entitled to claim Rs.28,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal till realisation. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said award, the F.A.O NO. 1057 OF 1993 -3- present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs.66,276/- instead of Rs.28,000/- granted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the total amount spent upon the said vehicle was Rs.66,276/- and the Tribunal has wrongly allowed the amount of Rs.28,000/-. The prayer has been made for enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.66,276/-. I have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in the same. The Tribunal has observed that initially the amount claimed by the claimant was Rs.30,000/- which was later on enhanced to Rs.56,000/- then to Rs.66,000/-. It was also observed that the model of the vehicle was '1978' and the accident has taken place in the year 1988 i.e after ten years of the purchase of the vehicle. The vehicle in question has almost outlived its life. So in these circumstances, the initial claim was only for Rs.30,000/- which has been later on enhanced to Rs.66,000/-. The Tribunal has also taken into account the fact that the parts must have depreciated. So, in view of the above, no ground for enhancement is made out. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. FEBRUARY 04, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE