FAO No. 598 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 598 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.1.2010 Hem Chand Jain .. Appellant v. Subhan Khan and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the Insurance Company. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 29.7.1991, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby on account of damage to the Maruti van, owned by the appellant, the learned Tribunal has awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 14,055/-. The appellant was owner of Maruti Van bearing No. HNG-3000. On 13.9.1989, brother of the appellant was returning to Gurgaon from Rewa in the said van after supplying some goods. The van was being driven by him on correct side of the road at a moderate speed. When it reached in the area of village Khandsa, truck No. HRR-6352, being driven rashly and negligently at a fast speed by respondent No. 1 came from the opposite side and struck against the rear side of another truck, as a result of which its rear wheel was detached and struck against the Maruti Van causing extensive damage thereto. Vide impugned award, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,055/- as damages to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the evidence led by him to show that substantial amount was spent on the repair of the vehicle, still as against that, merely Rs. 35,000/- were claimed as damages. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that from the material on record, it was established beyond doubt that the claim made by the appellant was highly exorbitant. The same was not FAO No. 598 of 1992 [2] corroborated with the evidence led. The bills from small time vendors were produced, who were not even registered under the Sales Tax Act. Bill of even parts, which could not be damaged in the accident, were produced to exaggerate the claim. The learned Tribunal has reasonably assessed the amount of compensation, which does not call for any interference. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Though the appellant made a claim of Rs. 35,000/- in the petition filed, however, the evidence did not corroborate the same. It was sought to be claimed that the Van remained off the road for a period of about 45-50 days and the spare parts worth Rs. 17,000/- were purchased, besides payment of Rs. 6,000/- as labour charges. There was no apparent justification for the vehicle having taken 45-50 days in repairs. It was found that the claim was made with regard to spare parts of gear box, which could not possibly be damaged in the kind of accident held, which means a false claim was put up. The bill for spare parts of Rs. 17,505/- (Ex.P3) produced by PW3- Surinder Kumar was found to be fictitious, considering the fact that he was a small time vendor having his shop of merely 4'x6' with no sales tax registration number. Reason as to why the vehicle was not got repaired from an authorised service centre is not forthcoming. On weighing the evidence minutely, the learned Tribunal assessed Rs. 10,455/- on account of replacement of damaged parts and Rs. 3,600/- as labour charges and finally determined Rs. 14,055/- as amount of compensation, which cannot be faulted with on any count. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.1.2010 mk