HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2181 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance Company against the order in O.P.No.285 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, where-under for a claim for damages to Swaraj Mazda Goods vehicle bearing No.AP 9U 4765 a sum of Rs.80,000/- was granted as against the claim for Rs.2,00,000/-. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of Swaraj Mazda Mini Goods Vehicle bearing No.AP 9U 4765. On 20.10.2001 when his vehicle was proceeding from Bollaram village to Miyapur, the lorry bearing No.KA 01D 1888 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle, as a result of which, the vehicle was damaged. According to the claimant, the damages were estimated to a tune of Rs.1,55,000/- for spare parts, Rs.11,171/- towards repairing charges and loss of earnings have also been fixed at Rs.45,000/- and consequently, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was claimed. The Insurance Company, which is the appellant, has disputed the nature of the incident, the quantum of damages and also the claim of the appellant. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.80,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no proof of the actual damages and Ex.A.3 is the only estimates said to have prepared by PW.2 and there are also no bills produced about the purchase of the spare parts or the repair work done by PW.2. It is also pleaded by the counsel for the appellant that evidence of PW.2 does not disclose as to how long the repairs were done and it also does not disclose that he was the person that has repaired the vehicle. As rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant, the lower Tribunal without there being bills has fixed a quantum of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing the spare parts, repairs of the vehicle and labour charges, so also the loss of income was estimated at Rs.30,000/- for two months without there being any material as to how long the vehicle was repaired and how long it was out of road and as to who has attended the repairs. In the absence of such material, which could be easily produced by the appellant guess work is not permissible. No doubt panchanama of the scene and the photographs Ex.A.9 disclose some damages to the vehicle. Therefore, taking into consideration the above circumstances, I feel the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal at Rs.80,000/- is not based on any evidence or material and I feel the ends of justice would meet if the compensation on all counts is fixed at Rs.55,000/-. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:21.09.2011 INL