HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.956 of 2002 Date: September 23, 2010 Between: 1. Dhulipalla Swarajyalakshmi & 2 others. … Petitioners/ Appellants And 1. B. Prabhakararao & another … Respondents/ Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.956 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.707 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 15.11.2001. 2. The facts leading to the appeal are that on 21.8.1997, Dhulipalla Srinivasa Rao was coming in Maruti car No.PY 01 H 3589 from Nammakkal and near Seven Hills Resort, a lorry bearing No.AP 7T 1247 coming from opposite direction being driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed against the Maruti car. Dhulipalla Srinivasa Rao died in the accident and the Maruti car was totally damaged. It became useless and scrap and Alipiri Police registered crime No.130 of 1997. The value of the Maruti car was Rs.5,18,158/- if it were to be repaired with new parts. But it was sold as scrap for Rs.33,000/-. The wife, daughter and mother of Dhulipalla Srinivasa Rao therefore claimed Rs.3,50,000/- towards value of the Maruti car from the owner and insurer of the lorry. 3. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal and the insurer contended that neither the lorry was insured with it nor was there any negligence on the part of the lorry driver in causing the accident. The driver of the said lorry was said to be having no valid licence and the insurer of the Maruti car is a necessary party. The liability of second respondent is contingent, if the Maruti car is insured and hence the insurer desired the claim to be negatived. 4. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation towards value of the Maruti car. 5. During inquiry, the Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-10, while no evidence was adduced on behalf of second respondent. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting Ex.A-1 First Information Report, Ex.A-2 charge sheet and Ex.A-3 report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector as corroborating the oral evidence of P.W.3 who was also travelling in the same car at the time of accident. The Tribunal consequently concluded in the absence of any evidence for the respondents that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal considered that the Maruti car which was damaged was earlier insured with the same insurance company which was not renewed and concluded that non- furnishing of particulars of the insurance of the Maruti car is also fatal to the case of the claimants and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., the insurer of the Maruti car. The Tribunal noted that P.W.2 purchased the damaged Maruti car from the claimants for Rs.33,000/- and re-sold the same for some profit. The Tribunal also noted that P.W.4 a private surveyor fixed the market value of the car at Rs.3,25,000/- while valuing the damaged car at Rs.50,000/-. However, as no notice was given to the insurer before the survey by the private surveyor, the Tribunal refused to rely upon the assessment of the private surveyor or Ex.A-3 copy of the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report for assessing the damage to the Maruti car and holding that the value of the car was not proved, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition with costs. 7. The claimants consequently filed the present appeal before this Court contending that the insurer of the car is neither a necessary nor a proper party, when the accident was proved to have been due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The claimants also contended that the value of the vehicle and damage sustained during the accident are evident from the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and the report of the surveyor corroborated by the evidence of the surveyor and therefore the failure to quantify the damages for the car by the Tribunal is illegal. The claimants therefore desired that the claim be allowed as made before the Tribunal. 8. Heard Sri M. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G. Visweswara Reddy, learned standing counsel for the insurer. The owner of the lorry remained unrepresented before this Court also. 9. The finding of the Tribunal in the impugned award about the responsibility for the accident being that of the driver of the lorry due to his rash and negligent driving was not challenged by any party to the claim and has become final. The ownership of the lorry with the first respondent and its subsisting insurance with the second respondent were also not disputed and there was no legal or factual circumstance on record to absolve either respondent from the liability to justly and adequately compensate the claim for the damage caused to the Maruti car in the accident. 10. The only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled towards the damage to the Maruti car in the accident. While the relationship of the claimants with the deceased Dhulipalla Srinivasa Rao, the owner of the car is also undisputed, such relationship has been upheld by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P. No.753 of 1997 by the award dated 12.7.2000 in considering the compensation payable to them towards the death of Srinivasa Rao. Admittedly the said award has become final in the absence of any challenge to the same by any of the parties. 11. When the responsibility for the accident has been concluded by the Tribunal itself to be with the lorry driver with no allegations of any contributory negligence on the part of Maruti car driver in any manner or measure, the presence or absence of any insurance for the Maruti car is an irrelevant circumstance in considering the compensation payable by the respondents to the claimants for the damage to the car. Assuming that the claimants either were unable to prove the insurance of the car or even suppressed the information about such insurance, the same cannot make any difference to the liability of either respondent to reasonably compensate the claimants towards the value of the Maruti car which was damaged in the accident. 12. In so far as the value of the Maruti car is concerned, the claimants attempted to contend that the value of the spare parts as on the date of accident to restore the Maruti car to its original position was Rs.5,18,158/- and P.W.2 claimed to have purchased the damaged Maruti car for Rs.33,000/- under Ex.A-5 sale letter. P.W.4 the private surveyor assessed the market value of the Maruti car at Rs.3,25,000/- taking into account the showroom price of a new Maruti car at Rs.3,80,000/- by then and also the depreciation in value which has to be deducted. The replacements indeed were assessed by him to be of a value of Rs.5,18,158/-, while the value of the damaged car was assessed by him to be around Rs.50,000/- P.W.4 in his evidence reiterated such assessment and the cross-examination on behalf of the insurer shows that there was no damage to the vehicle on the back side, the entire damage being only to the front portion of the car. The suggestion on behalf of the insurer was only that the private surveyor gave more value than real and not that he did not conduct any survey at all. P.W.4 is a licensed surveyor and there was no reason deduced from the material on record to attribute any interestedness to him in the claimants. Surveying and valuing is part of his avocation and his evidence and the report could not have been brushed aside by the tribunal for no explicable reason. 13. In any view when the Tribunal concluded that the Maruti car was damaged in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, it should have made every effort to arrive at a reasonable measure of damages to be granted to the claimants on the material on record and could not have refused the claim in total on the ground of unreliability of the evidence of P.W.4. 14. The then showroom value of a new Maruti car being Rs.3,80,000/- as claimed by P.W.4 was not in dispute during his cross- examination and the deduction of depreciation in the value of the vehicle by P.W.4 was not shown to be against the prevailing market or commercial practices. The vehicle probably could not have been valued at Rs.3,25,000/- had it been maintained in the same perfect condition as a new car. While there was no material to show the condition in which the vehicle was maintained since purchase till the accident, the evidence of P.W.4 shows that the value of the body of the vehicle was only Rs.1,35,863/-. When the value of the body of the vehicle is Rs.1,35,000/- according to P.W.4, how the value of the vehicle in total was assessed at Rs.3,25,000/- is not very much explained in his evidence and taking into account the inevitable natural element of exaggeration in such estimate to get higher compensation and in the light of absence of any notice to the insurer before the survey and valuation, taking the value of the Maruti car at about 50% of the value estimated by the private surveyor P.W.4 may be reasonable and just. If the car was worth Rs.3,25,000/- before the accident and was worth Rs.50,000/- after the accident, the loss caused to the claimants was Rs.2,75,000/- according to P.W.4 and if the value of the car were to be assessed, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, at Rs.1,50,000/-, the same may be adequate and just compensation to the claimants towards damage to the Maruti car. 15. Such compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- should carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization as the claimants were not at fault in the Tribunal not awarding a reasonable compensation and as the insurer has to pay interest for a period of about 12 years. Proportionate costs on the compensation awarded also should follow as a natural consequence. 16. In the result, the award dated 15.11.2001 in M.V.O.P. No.707 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur is set aside and the said M.V.O.P. No.707 of 1998 is ordered granting a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimants with interest at 6% per annum thereon from the date of the petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. The compensation so awarded shall be shared at 50% to the first claimant and 25% each to second and third claimants and no direction need be given regarding disbursement of compensation at this distance of time which can be received by the claimants direct on payment or deposit by the insurer. 17. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part. No costs. _________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: September 23, 2010. BSB