F.A.O.NO. 2244 OF 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2244 OF 2007 Date of decision:17th August, 2010 New India Assurance Company Limited .......Appellant Versus Smt. Jasbir Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. H.K.Bindra, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) The appellant's contention is that the value assessed for the vehicle's damage was wholly arbitrary. There was nothing to say that the vehicle was worth Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was in evidence that the vehicle's make was of the year 1994 and by virtue of the accident it had become wholly damaged and was not in a position fit enough to repair. PW-4 Gurbachan Singh had stated on oath that he was running a motor workshop and inspected the car in the premises of police station Nurpur Bedi. F.A.O.NO. 2244 OF 2007 2 He had also prepared a report i.e. Ex.PW4/A that set out the condition and also the value of the car. The Court referred to the fact that the car had been purchased only a few months prior and at the time of purchase it cost Rs. 1,20,000/-. The Court worked out on what it described as regarding the value of car and stated the depreciated value of the car was Rs. 1,00,000/-. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no scientific method to work out the depreciation and the Tribunal had not even deducted the salvage value of the vehicle. These are matters of evidence and if Tribunal had assessed the value to be Rs. 1,00,000/- on the basis of evidence adduced before it that the vehicle had been purchased only few months earlier for Rs. 1,20,000/- deduction of the amount by further Rs. 20,000/- itself has a fair approximation for arriving at the value. If one has to look at the expert's evidence it was available through the evidence of PW-4. I have not been shown to any other method of scientific assessment which could enable the court to re-assess more correctly. I would rather lean in favour of the assessment made by the Tribunal in the absence of materials or parameters given to me to reassess it in the manner the appellants plead for. The award of the Tribunal is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 17th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik