IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.1624 of 2002 Between: B. Jayaram Krishna .. Appellant AND Smt. R. Pushpa and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 28-02-2002 in M.V.O.P. No.369 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. On 07-01-1998, matador van No.AP 21T 3186 owned by the appellant, driven at normal speed carefully and cautiously on the extreme left side of the road, was dashed from behind by lorry No.KA-05A-5949 driven rashly and negligently. The matador van fell in a road side ditch and was totally damaged, while the inmates of the van were also injured. The owner of the van, therefore, sought for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry towards damage to the van. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim contending that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the van itself and in any view, the compensation claimed is excessive. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the appellant herein for compensation and during the enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.B.1 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the driver of the matador van as P.W.2, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.3 charge- sheet and Ex.A.4 extract of register of summary trial cases relating to S.T.C. No.176 of 1998. Apart from referring to the probabilities arising out of the evidence of P.W.2 vis-à-vis the manner of the accident, the Tribunal also relied on the conviction of the driver of the offending vehicle in S.T.C. No.176 of 1998 to conclude that the rash and negligent driving of the lorry was the sole cause for the accident. In assessing the damage to the vehicle, the Tribunal noted that though P.W.2, the driver, claimed that the cost of damage would be about Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-, the private surveyor appointed by the claimant himself assessed the loss at Rs.44,200/-. The Tribunal also referred to the absence of production of any bills before P.W.3, who assessed the damage only on the strength of the photographs of the vehicle and the Tribunal considered it appropriate to award only Rs.20,000/- as damages on the basis of Ex.A.2 observation report prepared by the police head constable. As the insurance policy was subsisting for the offending vehicle by the relevant date, the Tribunal held both the respondents to be liable to pay the compensation with proportionate costs. The owner of the matador van is the appellant herein contending that when he incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- towards repairs to bring back the vehicle to roadworthiness, the grant of meagre compensation of Rs.20,000/- in spite of positive evidence is untenable. Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent are heard, while the 1st respondent, owner of the lorry, remained unrepresented before this Court also. The subsistence of a valid insurance policy issued by the 2nd respondent and the ownership of the lorry with the 1st respondent are not in dispute and the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the lorry driver only remained unchallenged by any party and therefore, the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the matador van owner for the damage caused to the van is not in dispute. What is in question is only the quantum of compensation to which the owner of the van is entitled. The appellant as P.W.1 before the Tribunal claimed to have incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the repair of the matador van and also stated that he did not claim any reimbursement of the said expenses from the insurer of the matador van, though own damage to the vehicle also is covered by such insurance. While such claim that he made no claim against the insurer is not contradicted by any other evidence, the driver of the van also stated about the total damage to the matador van, the cost of which would be between Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-. However, he did not speak about the said damage being repaired as claimed by P.W.1. P.W.3, the private surveyor engaged by P.W.1 gave Ex.A.7 final survey report and while the process of his survey was sought to be questioned during his cross-examination, his avocation as a surveyor and the independence and credibility of his survey do not appear to have been questioned seriously during his cross- examination except suggesting that the assessment in Ex.A.7 is excessive. It is seen from Ex.A.2 panchanama of the scene of offence conducted by H.C.128 in the presence of Village Administrative Officer and another independent witness that the matador van appeared to have been dragged to a distance of more than 20 feet and to have fallen in a ditch. The van was stated to have been totally damaged in body, chasis, engine, seats, battery and glasses. The glass pieces were found to have been scattered all over the scene and Ex.A.2, thus, discloses that the damage to the vehicle was extensive and total. The charge-sheet in Crime No.1 of 1998 also referred to the damage to the vehicle and even the earliest version in the first information report Ex.A.1 is that the matador van was totally damaged in its body, while the glasses were broken on the left and front sides. The very nature of the accident as seen from the documents and oral evidence is such that the damage could not have been anything less than extensive. The photographs of the damaged vehicle attached to Ex.A.7 survey report fully corroborate the possibility and P.W.3 is a Surveyor and Loss Assessor by profession, technically qualified, who, though not immediately, had carefully assessed the damage in Ex.A.7 report. He made a detailed description of the damage and the probable cost of repairs to such damage and there is neither reason nor expertise for the Tribunal to differ from the independent assessment of the surveyor. Even if the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the accident and the damage was considered by the Tribunal to be self-serving with distinct natural possibility of exaggeration, the evidence of P.W.3 could not have been attributed with any such vice, and just and adequate compensation to the appellant could have been, at least, at the sum arrived at by P.W.3 in Ex.A.7. Accordingly, the compensation already awarded has to be enhanced to an extent of another Rs.24,200/- and in view of the enhancement of compensation, the same should also carry proportionate costs. The Tribunal did not award any interest even on the compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded under the impugned award notwithstanding the enabling statutory provision under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal could and should have granted simple interest at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim on the compensation in the interests of justice. Therefore, interest can be awarded on the entire compensation at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization taking into account the fact that such interest has to be paid by the respondents for more than eight and half years. Accordingly, the award, dated 28-02-2002 in M.V.O.P. No.369 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool is modified by granting a total compensation of Rs.44,200/- (Rupees forty four thousand and two hundred only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs and no directions need be given at this distance of time concerning the disbursement of compensation. However, it is made clear that if any amount is already deposited to the credit of the matter by the owner or the insurer of the offending vehicle, interest shall cease to run on the amount of such deposit from the date of such deposit. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 09-09-2010 Svv