FAO No.1214 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1214 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: January 25, 2011 MANSHA RAM AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS RAJINDER AND OTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. NITIN JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. KUNAL GARG, AAG, HARYANA. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for damage caused to the building by the Haryana Roadways Bus by ramming into the building belonging to the claimant and causing extensive damage. It was contended by the claimant that the verandah and three rooms had been damaged and he had spent about a lac of rupees. The photographer was examined as PW2 who stated that he had noticed damage to the verandah and one side room. An Architect-Engineer who had visited the place had given his own estimate of damages and the cost of repairing showed through Ex.P7 was `37,500/-. I have seen through the report and find it extensive with reference to details to the plinth area of the construction that had remained demolished, the cost of bricks, cement, labour, etc. and has arrived at a figure in a reasonably lucid and proper way. The Architect has adopted the Schedule of rates prescribed under the Haryana Gazette for at FAO No.1214 of 1992 -2- the relevant time. He had also drawn up a plan of the building and the area where work has to be undertaken. Even apart from the report, he had himself given evidence in Court as PW3 and subjected himself to cross- examination. There ought not have been a reason to make arbitrary estimation in the manner in which the Tribunal had done especially when the claimant had placed best technical evidence. There was again no reason to suspect that the estimation given by the Architect is exaggerated. The report evokes confidence in me the way it has been drawn and I would, therefore, hold that the claimant is entitled to claim of `37,500/- as claimed. The Tribunal had awarded only `12,500/- and the amount in excess over what has been determined will also bear interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 2. The liability shall be on the owner of the bus, namely, the State and its functionaries who have been arrayed as respondents in the appeal. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. January 25, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE