HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.: 484 of 2005 Reserved on: 3.9.2009 Decided on: 7.9.2009 Ramesh Sharma ………Appellant. Versus Harvinder Singh and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the appellants: Mr.Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No.1 & 2: Mr.Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.3: Mr.Praneet Gupta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated 25.8.2005, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation amounting to Rs.1,54,252/-, i.e. Rs.1.00 lac for the injuries suffered by the petitioner and Rs.54,252/- on account of the damage to his car. It was alleged by the appellant/petitioner that he was travelling in his car ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - bearing No.HP 14 9601 and the accident took place at bye- pass road, Solan due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, who struck his vehicle against the car of the petitioner resulting in the accident. Respondent No.1 was impleaded as owner of the truck while respondent No.2 was impleaded as driver of the truck and respondent No.3 was impleaded as the insurer of the vehicle. The petition was tried by the learned Tribunal and on conclusion of the trial, it was held that the petitioner has proved that the accident took place due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle namely respondent No.2 and the petitioner was held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the injuries and Rs.36,252/- for the damage to the car. It was also held that the liability of the Insurance company will be limited to Rs.6,000/- and the balance amount shall be payable by its owner and the driver i.e. respondent No.1 and 2, respectively, jointly and severally. Being aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present appeal for enhancement. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that though the appellant had claimed - 3 - a sum of Rs.1.00 lac for the injuries suffered by him, but the learned Tribunal had granted only a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the pain and suffering undergone by the appellant. It is clear from the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal that there was no evidence led by the petitioner to show that he spent any amount for purchasing medicine or for his treatment. A copy of the prescription only had been produced which suggested that there was some fracture but neither any Medical Officer was examined to prove the injuries in question nor the period for which the petitioner remained under treatment was proved and no medical bills were produced. The only evidence led was in regard to the prescription slips and the learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering which findings do not call for an interference by this Court. Coming to the plea that though the petitioner had proved the bill for a sum of Rs.54,252/-, which amount was alleged to have been spent by the petitioner for the repairs of his car after the accident, but the learned Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3rd of this amount relying upon a decision in Manager New India Assurance Co.Ltd. versus Moramoudi Prasada Rao and others, 1997 (1) TAC 845 (A.P.). A perusal of this decision shows that it has been observed that the part of the property may have diminished in quality or the value by use or replacement etc. and, therefore, in the guise of repair or replacement, the courts cannot reimburse more than actual - 4 - loss and, therefore, deduction to the extent of 1/3rd was held to be proper. The learned Tribunal relying upon the said decision had deducted a sum of Rs.15,000/-. The only point canvassed during the course of arguments was that though the decision cited showed that 1/3rd deduction was made for the parts replaced but the learned Tribunal ordered deduction of 1/3rd amount from the full bill. I have gone through the original bill Ext.PA/2 proved in evidence by the petitioner. It does not clearly specify the amount spent for replacement of the parts or for other purpose. I have gone through another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. versus T.M. Chayapathi and another, 2006 ACJ 2206, wherein also it was held by the court that owner of the damaged vehicle is not entitled to cost of new parts. He is entitled to value of old parts which have been damaged and, therefore, it was held that 1/3rd value of the new parts may be deducted to cover depreciation. The bill does not specify charges for the labour taken by the dealer and, therefore, it has to be held that the bill consists of the parts replaced by the dealer and as such, the deduction was rightly made by the learned Tribunal, which findings do not call for an interference by this Court. No other point was urged. - 5 - In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not call for an interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. September 7, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.