FAO No. 1228 of 1994 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 1228 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.4.2010 Surjit Singh ... Appellant vs Shamsher Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The claimant is in appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). Briefly the facts are that on 17.3.1991, Tanker No. HNQ-4302 owned by M/s Haryana Milk Food Products, driven by Shamsher Singh respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the wall of the residential house of the claimant. Due to this, the entire house developed cracks. It was alleged that the house suffered extensive damage and prayed for grant of Rs. 1 lac as compensation. The learned Tribunal granted Rs. 2,100/- as compensation for the damages. Still dissatisfied with the award, he has challenged the award before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the appellant. The claimant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 1 lac and the learned Tribunal has granted only Rs. 2,100/-. The Tribunal has granted no amount with regard to humiliation and harassment. He prayed that the award of the learned Tribunal be set aside and keeping in view the loss suffered by the appellant the compensation be enhanced. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper- book. FAO No. 1228 of 1994 -2- The accident was not disputed by either of the parties before the learned Tribunal. As per the evidence produced by the appellant, the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has relied upon report dated 16.11.1993 of Local Commissioner Shri R. C. Sikka, Executive Engineer, P.W.D. B& R, Kaithal, and granted Rs. 2,100/- as compensation. The entire evidence produced by the appellant cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation for the reason that the estimate produced on record was for new construction. The so called expert did not even visit the spot before preparing the estimate. On the other side, the respondents produced report of independent witness who was the Executive Engineer in the Department of P.W.D. B& R, Kaithal. However, still considering the fact that the Tribunal merely granted cost of repair and in the accident some non-visible damage will also be there to the structure, I deem it appropriate to grant further Rs. 5,000/- in lump-sum to the appellant in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 1.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge