IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 401 of 2005. Date of decision : 7.7.2011. Smt. Bimla Dass …Appellant. Versus Gian Singh & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate. For the respondent No1: Mr. Dhruv Shaunak, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the award dated 10.6.2005 whereby the claimant has been awarded Rs. 19,300/- out of which Rs. 7300/- has been awarded on account of damage to the vehicle. 2. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned, no interference is called for in the case. Though according to Janki Dass the alleged driver of the car, who appeared as RW-1, he was not driving the car at the relevant time, it is apparent that the car was involved in the accident because on 7.12.2000 itself an F.I.R was recorded in which 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 his car number was given. The version of the respondent that the car was not used does not appear to be correct. 3. The claimant suffered a fracture to the rib and other minor injuries in the accident. He also remained admitted in the hospital for one day and remained on leave for about 12 days. He was awarded Rs.3,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.4,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.5,000/- for loss of income. No interference is called for as far as this amount is concerned. 4. The only serious contention raised by the appellant is that no reliance can be placed on the bills produced by the petitioner for repair of his motor-cycle since these bills were issued in the year 2002 and the accident occurred in the month of December, 2000. If the accident had taken place in the manner submitted by the claimant and the motor cycle required repairs some plausible explanation should have been given why the motor cycle was not got repaired for almost one and a half year. The only explanation given is that the claimant was not in a position to drive the motor-cycle. This explanation on the face of it appears to be false because even as per the petitioner he only remained admitted in the 3 hospital for one day and joined duties after 15 days. No doctor has been examined to show that the petitioner could not drive a motor-cycle for one and a half years. Therefore, no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the bills relied upon by the claimant and the amount of Rs.7,300/- awarded appears to be excessive. However, since I have held that an accident did take place and some damage must have been caused to the motor cycle, a sum of Rs.3,000/- is assessed as damages to the motor cycle. The award is consequently reduced from Rs. 19,300/- to Rs.15,000/-. The claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 7th July, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.