IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2072 of 2003 Between: Ch. Lakshmi Kumari .. Appellant AND E. Ravi Babu and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.2105 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 06-09-2002. The appellant’s car was hit from behind by Bajaj auto owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent on 30-10-2000 at about 4 P.M. near the back gate of Viceroy hotel, Hyderabad resulting in damage to the rear side body, back wheel and back door. The police, Gandhinagar registered a case against the auto driver and the appellant got the damage estimated by Anuroop Auto Mechanics, who assessed the damage at Rs.20,984/-. For further repair of the back door, an expense of Rs.11,325/- was additionally estimated. The appellant also claimed to have spent Rs.11,000/- towards moving in taxi for attending Court as an advocate during the period of the repair of the car. Hence, she claimed a compensation of Rs.44,179/- from both the respondents jointly and severally. While the owner of the auto remained ex parte, the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of the damage and the expenses incurred towards repairs. The insurer claimed the insurer of the car also to be a necessary party and the appellant was put to strict proof of all her other allegations. The compensation claimed was stated to be exorbitant. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. During the enquiry, P.W.1 and R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 and B.1 to B.4 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver, for which purpose it accepted the evidence of the appellant as P.W.1, corroborated by the auto driver being fined for the offence under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal accepted Ex.A.7 bill, dated 18-11-2000 and did not accept Ex.A.8 bill for Rs.21,159/- dated 22-11-2000, as none connected with the issuance of Ex.A.8 was examined by the appellant and as R.W.2, the Works Manager of Anuroop Auto, deposed about Ex.A.8 not being issued by the work shop. The Tribunal also referred to the evidence of R.W.1, the investigator of the insurer, and the non- production of any records or registers relating to the workshop which allegedly issued Ex.A.8 also was the reason for the Tribunal to discredit Ex.A.8 and grant only Rs.7,465/- covered by Ex.A.7 apart from Rs.3,000/- towards auto charges for the period of the repairs of the car between 30-10-2000 and 23-11-2000. On a total compensation of Rs.10,465/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. The appellant filed the appeal mainly challenging the non- acceptance of Ex.A.8 bill, more so in the light of the surveyor’s report Ex.A.4, which itself assessed the damage at a much higher level. The repairs were done in two garages of the same company and hence, the appellant desired the balance compensation to be awarded. Heard Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel representing Sri G. Peddababu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.S. Prakasa Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. None appeared for 1st respondent before this Court. In so far as the conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the auto driver for the accident and the joint and several liability of the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimant for the damage caused to the car are concerned, either party did not challenge the same. The only dispute is about the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled. While there was no doubt about Ex.A.7 bill dated 18-11-2000 for Rs.7,465/-, Ex.A.8 bill was suspected with particular reference to the evidence of R.W.2 who was the Works Manager of M/s. Anuroop Auto Private Limited at Patigadda. He stated that while Ex.A.7 was issued by their workshop, the bill in Ex.A.8 did not appear to have been issued by their workshop, as there was no related record and as it was not signed by the cashier. He also stated that their bills and invoices are issued through computer output, while Ex.A.8 was typed. Even their Bowenpally workshop did not issue Ex.A.8 as per the records maintained at that workshop. He also stated that, that workshop had no typewriter and during the cross-examination of R.W.2, none of these aspects were subjected to any questioning. On the other hand, it was specifically suggested to P.W.1 on behalf of the insurer that Ex.A.8 was fabricated for the purpose of the claim. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong, if it stated that the non-examination of any person connected with the issuance of Ex.A.8 and the non- production of any records or registers relating to issuance of Ex.A.8, throw doubts about the genuineness of the bill. In a civil cause to be decided on the balance of broad human probabilities, the Tribunal cannot be considered to have come to any unreasonable conclusion with regard to that bill under the circumstances. It is true that in Ex.A.4 assessment of the damage by the Surveyor appointed by the insurer, the damage was assessed at Rs.19,384/- including the labour charges and the value of the parts to be replaced, but Ex.A.7 bill more or less appears to be concerning the damage noted by the surveyor in Ex.A.4. A cursory verification of Ex.A.8 is as though some items covered by Ex.A.7 are repeated therein and in any view, Ex.A.8 cannot be considered proved by P.W.1 in the face of the denial by the 2nd respondent and the positive evidence of R.W.2 and in the absence of any independent corroboration to reject the claims of R.W.2. However, in so far as the transport charges for the claimant for the period of the car being under repair, for a period of 25 days, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,000/-. The claimant is admittedly an advocate and had to commute between her residence and the Court for the purpose of practising her profession. She stated on oath about claiming Rs.11,000/- towards the expenses of transport during that period and even assuming that there might be an element of exaggeration in claiming the same, keeping in view the probable charges she would have to incur, if she were to engage a taxi during the relevant period, assessing the same at Rs.200/- per day will not be excessive. While an element of guess and estimate is inevitable in such estimate, grant of Rs.5,000/- towards charges of transport will be reasonable and just. While it is true that there was no specific reference to the transport charges in the grounds of appeal, as in the miscellaneous appeal, the entire dispute is available for readjudication, such upward revision of that amount is not beyond jurisdiction. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6 per cent per annum in view of the distance of time for which interest has to be paid and proportionate costs, of course, shall have to be paid. In the result, the award, dated 06-09-2002 in O.P. No.2105 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 11-02-2011 Svv