HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3005 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of damages, claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order and decree in O.P. No.889 of 1999 dated 08-05-2002 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry. 2. Appellant is claimant, respondent No.1 is driver of the lorry involved in the accident, respondent No.2 is owner of that lorry and respondent No.3 – National Insurance Company Limited is insurer of respondent No.2’s lorry. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. Claimant’s case is that her husband purchased a Fiat car bearing No.AHV 999 of 1986 - Model and that on 02-11-1999 at 10-30 PM while the car was parked on the left side margin of the road opposite to Arts College, near Y-Junction, Rajahmundry, lorry bearing No.AP-27-T-1177 belonging to respondent No.2 driven by its driver, respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car and on account of that car was totally damaged. The traffic police imposed a fine of Rs.200/- on the driver of the lorry vide receipt No.83535 dated 03-11-1999. Claimant spent Rs.30,000/- for repairs of the car, as such, she claimed that amount towards damages against respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver of the lorry and its owner, remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.3, insurance company filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the car bearing No.AHV 999 relating to the petitioner sustained damages due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 27 T 1177 by the 1st respondent ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ?” 8. To prove her case, claimant got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of respondent No.3, no oral evidence was adduced except marking certificate of insurance as Ex.B-1. 9. Based on the material on record, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards damages against respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of damages, claimant filed this appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 11. Evidence of PW.1, son-in-law of the claimant, is that on 02-11-1999 at 10-30 PM, driver of the claimant’s car parked the car on the left side of the road near Y-Junction, Rajahmundry and himself and car driver went outside, at that time respondent No.2’s lorry driven by respondent No.1 in the opposite direction, while averting the lorry in hitting a cow, dashed against the car, as a result, entire body of the car was crushed. Ex.A-1 is the certificate issued by the police showing that driver of the lorry was imposed fine of Rs.200/- for causing the accident and Ex.A-2 is the challan and receipt paying the above fine. According to PW.1, car was taken to workshop for repairs and Rs.24,046/- was spent towards repairs and total expenditure incurred was Rs.30,000/-. PW.2 is a mechanic, who said to have repaired the damaged car. 12. Based on the evidence, holding that damages of the car were not assessed by the insurance surveyor to decide the actual damages, Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- towards damages, which is said to be statutory compensation. 13. When without any material, Rs.6,000/- was awarded, even Rs.30,000/- could have been awarded based on the evidence of PW.1. Only whatever is liable by the insurance company, respondent No.3, was paid by it and the balance has to be paid by the owner of the lorry. 14. Ex.A-4 bills show that an amount of Rs.24,046/- was spent for repairing charges. Evidence of PW.2 is that he made repairs to the car, got it tinkered, painted and several parts were replaced. Thus, it is not a case where there is absolutely no evidence to show damages caused to the car. There is evidence that Rs.24,000/- was spent towards repairs etc., but out of that some amount would go towards depreciation. In the circumstances, an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded towards damages. 15. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) is awarded towards damages of the car to the claimant instead of Rs.6,000/-. The rate of interest on the enhanced damages shall be at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. It is made clear that liability of respondent No.3, insurance company, shall be as per the terms of the policy and the Motor Vehicles Act and the remaining amount shall be recovered from the owner of the lorry. 16. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 14, 2010. PV