agk FA656-93 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.656 OF 1993 Ramkisan Lalchand Navandar .. Appellant versus Shaikh Nizar Shaikh Isa & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.N.Joshi for the appellant. Mr.Mandar Limaye i/by Mr.R.S.Apte for respondent No.2. Mr.D.R.Mahadik for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 7th September 2010. JUDGMENT: . The appellant is the claimant in a claim petition claiming compensation on account of damage to his scooter in a motor accident. The claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal. The case made out by the appellant is that his son (4th respondent) was driving his scooter on Bombay-Agra Road on 24th of November 1987. At about 10.30 am, it truck owned by the 2nd respondent which was being driven by the 1st respondent came from the opposite direction. According to the case of the appellant, at that time the 1st respondent was driving the truck in a very fast speed in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the truck gave a dash to the scooter. The 4th respondent suffered injuries and the agk FA656-93 (2) scooter sustained damage. The case of the appellant is that the truck was insured with the 3rd respondent. The claim was made by the appellant for recovery of compensation on account of damage to the scooter. 2 According to the case of the appellant made out in the claim petition, a sum of Rs.9194.35/- required to be spent on the repairs of the scooter. Moreover, the appellant suffered loss of Rs.10,000/-in his business. He stated that he suffered mental shock and he suffered mental pain and suffering. The claim was contested. The Tribunal recorded a finding that no evidence was adduced by the appellant to show that he has incurred expenditure on repairs. The finding on the other relevant issues were recorded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has supported the appeal by pointing out that there is already a finding recorded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck insured with the 3rd respondent and that the scooter owned by the appellant suffered damage. He pointed out that the appellant produced a detailed estimate at Exhibit 29 which was issued by Crystal Service Station, Nasik which showed that the total cost of replacement of the parts of the scooter was quantified. He submitted that very fact that the appellant got the repairs carried out to the scooter show that expenditure was incurred on the repairs. He submitted that the very fact that the appellant obtained estimate shows that the appellant had spent the amount for getting repairs carried out to the scooter. Otherwise, there was no reason for the appellant to obtain estimate. He agk FA656-93 (3) submitted that as damage to the scooter is established, a reasonable compensation ought to be awarded to the appellant. 3 I have considered the submissions. I have perused the record. The appellant stepped in to witness box. He stated that he incurred expenditure to the extent of Rs.9194.35/- for the repairs of the scooter. He specifically stated that he paid bill and received a receipt for the said amount. However, there is absolutely no explanation as to why receipt was not produced by the appellant. It is not his case that the receipt has been misplaced. In fact, there is no explanation whatsoever for non production of the receipt. The mechanic who has allegedly carried out the repairs has not been examined. In the examination-in-chief the appellant came out with a case that he was using scooter for his business purposes and therefore, he suffered loss as the scooter could not be used for six months. In the cross-examination the appellant went to the extent of stating that after the accident he has not maintained the accounts of his business of manufacture of trolleys. He stated that he is income tax payer. However, no evidence was adduced to show that he was earning a particular income. 4 Thus, this was a case where the appellant admitted that he obtained a receipt for payment of repair charges but the receipt has not been produced. There is no other document produced on record to show payment of repair charges. Person who carried out repairs is not examined. Mere production of agk FA656-93 (4) estimate given by a Mechanic will not prove the fact that repairs were carried out and expenditure was incurred. The version of appellant does not inspire confidence as he wants the Court to believe that though he is carrying on business and though he is an income tax payer, he has stopped maintaining accounts from the date of the accident. In fact this was a case where a strong adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the appellant. 5 Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J)