HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1930 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order in M.V.O.P.No.289 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge at Warangal. The petitioners in the above O.P., are the appellants herein. 2. According to the case of the petitioners, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 03 U 1699 the wall of the godown belonging to the petitioners has been damaged and consequently suffered loss to a tune of Rs.29,927/- and also they lost earnings. The godown is said to be belonging to the rice mill of the family of the petitioners. The lower Tribunal has accepted the claim of the petitioners so far as the nature of the incident is concerned and finding that there is no proof of the actual damages the Tribunal has not granted any compensation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the award of the lower Tribunal ignores Ex.A.3, which is a panchanama conducted at the scene of accident, where-under the damage to the wall of 27 feet in length and 15 feet in height of bricks was caused, the same was shown to have collapsed and photos were taken and the licenced surveyor is said to have estimated the cost of damage at Rs.29,927/-. Being of there is no other independent evidence on the side of the petitioners, the panchanama, which was conducted by the police as a part of investigation, which was accepted by the lower Tribunal, cannot be excluded from consideration. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have failed to prove damage to the property. The contents in panchanama clearly show that the wall was damaged and the valuation was given as Rs.29,927/-. In fact taking into consideration the length of the wall and its height, the value of the damage due to the collapse cannot be said to be excessive as can be seen from the photographs or the Ex.A.5 report given by the licenced surveyor. So far as the loss of earnings are concerned, I do not find that there is any case for petitioners since the collapse of the wall would not have caused any loss of business to the rice mill and consequently it has to be deducted. Taking into consideration the above facts, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.20,000/- is granted towards the damages. Since the insurance company has claimed that its liability is only a statutory liability of Rs.6,000/- the petitioner is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the insurance company and the balance of the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and an award is passed for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Out of the said amount, the insurance company is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.6,000/- and the balance shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:27.08.2011 INL