1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.311 OF 2006 Shri Pascoal Fernandes Son of Joao Fernandes, 40 years of age, Service, resident of house no.209, Joefil Nest, Nirmal Nagar, Xeldom, Quepem Goa. …. Appellant V/s 1. Shri Nanjappa, son of Narayanappa, major, resident of House No.426, IIIrd Cross, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore 10. 2. M.G. Gangaratnamma, wife of M.N. Gopal Krishna Shetty, major, r/o. House No.1316, Bali Temple Road, Basaranagauda, Bangalore 04. 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 140, Laxmi Complex, 2nd floor, K.R. Road Fort, Bangalore. …. Respondents Shri S.S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Gude, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 29th NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri S.S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri P.K. Gude, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3. 2 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 21/07/2006 passed by the Presiding Office, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa at Margao, in Claim Petition No.47/2003 whereby the Claim Petition filed by the applicant was partly allowed and the applicant was entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards repairs of the Tata Sumo bearing no.GA-02/C-7206. 3. At the hearing of the above appeal, Shri S.S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant points out that he had produced the bills which disclosed that the sum of Rs.51,000/- was paid for such repairs. Learned Counsel further points out that the mechanic has been examined who has stated that he had received a sum of Rs.8,500/- as well as Rs.16,000/- for repairing the vehicle as well as for painting. Learned Counsel has produced the bills at Exhibit 18 and 28 which disclose the amount of expenditure incurred by the appellant on account of repairs of the vehicle. Learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, Shri P.K. Gude, learned Counsel 3 appearing for respondent no.3 has vehemently argued that there is no case made out by the appellant for any enhancement of compensation. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no material adduced by the appellant to establish the amount of expenditure incurred for repairs of the vehicle. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the vehicle was of the year 1996 and, as such, the question of enhancing any amount would not arise. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal. POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of repairs of the vehicle of the appellant. 6. On perusal of the material on record, I find that the learned Judge was justified to discard the bills produced by the appellant with regard to the expenditure incurred for the alleged part used to repair the vehicle. The bills which are part of the record at Exhibit 18 and 28 are dated November and December, 2002 whereas the accident admittedly occurred in September, 2002. Hence, there is no explanation given by the appellant how the bills are dated 4 November and December, 2002 when the repairs were already completed in September, 2002. Hence, the learned Judge has rightly discarded the bills produced by the appellant. AW4 in his deposition did not give the particulars of the damage sustained. AW2 who was witness to the accident stated that only the bonnet of the Tata Sumo was damaged on account of accident. AW4 has also stated that the damage was to the bonnet to the front portion of the Tata Sumo vehicle. The said AW4 has also stated that besides repairing the bonnet he had also carried out painting. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of repairs of the vehicle, but however, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of actual payment incurred in the present case. 7. Considering the nature of the repairs, I find that the amount incurred by the appellant is not exorbitant. Fact remains that the respondents have not disputed that the vehicle was repaired by the appellant at New Janata Motor Garage. As such, in the interest of justice and considering the evidence on record, I find that sum of Rs.8,500/- referred to at Exhibit 18 being the the payment of bill towards New Janata Motor Garage would be appropriate 5 compensation on account of the expenditure incurred towards such repairs. The appellant, as such, would be entitled for a further sum of Rs.8,500/- besides the sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in that regard. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following order; O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs.8,500/- at the interest rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition up to actual payment. (iii) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-