1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 12/1998 {Anwar Ahamad Versus Shri Kishan Lal & Others} Date of Order :: 14th October, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Ram Singh Rathore for the appellant Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta) for the respondents Mr. Vinay Mathur ) BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred on behalf of the claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation against impugned award dated 9th July, 1997 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of property i.e. Bus, which was damaged in an accident took place on 28th September, 1990 arising out of use of motor vehicle. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Tribunal committed an illegality in recording a finding in respect of issue no. 3 relating to award of compensation in respect of loss of property i.e. damage to Bus of the 2 appellant in an accident took place on 28th September, 1990. He contended that as per statement of claimant - Anwar Ahmad (AW2), the bus No. RNP-2997 was purchased by him for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- and thereafter he spent the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on its repairing and to get it fit to run on the road, therefore, the cost of bus was Rs. 3,50,000/-. He further contended that even as per survey report prepared by Surveyor Anwar Ahmad AW-4 vide Ex. P-12, the appellant suffered a loss of Rs.1,75,000/-. The bus in dispute was sold after accident for a consideration of Rs. 70,000/-, therefore, at least the amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation for loss or damage to vehicle in dispute. He further prayed that amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced to Rs. 1,05,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contested the appeal and contended that vehicle in dispute was relating to model of 1976, whereas accident took place in the year 1990, therefore, vehicle was 14 years old. He further contended that the Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence 3 including statement of AW-2, AW-4 and Survey Report Ex.-12 and thereafter has recorded a finding that just and reasonable compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case for loss of property would be Rs. 50,000/- and consequently he awarded the same. He further contended that there is no perversity in the finding of the Tribunal, which requires any interference by this Court, therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award, oral and documentary evidence available in the file of the Tribunal. Admittedly the bus in dispute was belonging to the model of 1976 and at the time of accident in the year 1990, the bus was 14 years old. Although AW-2 – claimant has stated in his statement that he purchased the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and spent Rs. 1,50,000/- on it but from his statement, it is not clear as to when he purchased it and what is the proof of it. Even the year of purchase has not been disclosed in the statement nor any documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that he purchased the bus recently for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- and he spent 4 Rs. 1,50,000/- on it. The photographs of the bus after accident have been placed on record. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that from the photographs the bus has not been damaged so far, as mentioned in the survey report Ex.-12 and stated in the statement of AW-2 and AW-4. I have also examined the statement of AW2 and AW4 and the survey report Ex-12. After considering the same, I find that Tribunal was right in awarding a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of damage to bus in dispute in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The claimants' witness AW2 himself admitted that 10% depreciation is allowable every year and it being a vehicle of 1976, the entire amount had already been adjusted and there was a nil value of the vehicle in the year 1990. Even after the accident the claimant has received a sum of Rs.70,000/- by selling the vehicle and Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation which, in my view, is just and reasonable compensation. As per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the Tribunal is required to award compensation which is just and proper. The amount of compensation should not be a meager amount but at the same time, it should not be a bonanza also. The amount of compensation 5 awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and I do not find any ground to interfere in the same. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK