IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 374 of 2007 (Old No. 484/97) Smt. Akhtari Begum ... Appellant. Versus Executive Engineer Apar Ganga Canal Modernization Division-3 (W.B.) Roorkee and two others .. Respondents. Mr. A. Rab, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.1. Dated: 23-4-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 22-7-1995, passed by Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Roorkee, Haridwar, in MACP No. 57 of 1993. 2- The brief facts of the case are that on 22-2- 1993 in the morning at about 6 A.M. the Truck No. U.P. N-1608 owned by the claimant Executive Engineer, Upper Ganga Canal, was going to Narora for bringing steel wire rope for Drag Line Machine and when the said truck reached in front of Flora Dale School, another truck bearing registration U.G.A. 9547 came there in a high speed from front side and it firstly dashed the Bullock cart and then dashed the truck of the claimant from left side, due to which the truck was damaged. According to the claimant it spent about Rs. 1,07,452/- in the repair of the truck, Rs. 823/- crane charges and also spent some other amounts in carrying it to the work shop. The truck also remained idle for about 178 days and a loss of about Rs. 1050/- per day was suffered due to the damage caused to it. In this way a total compensation for Rs. 4,13,026-51 P. was claimed. 3- The Opposite Party No. 1 filed her written statement and alleged that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of driver of vehicle No. UPN 1608. The amount of damage has been demanded exorbitantly. 4. The Opposite Party New India Insurance Company also filed written statement and alleged that as per the provision of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is entitled to get only Rs. 6,000/- in the case of property damage. 5- Tribunal framed the relevant issues in the petition. The claimant produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of its case. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, allowed the petition for a sum of Rs. 1,72,350/- out of which Rs. 1,66,350/- was held payable by the Opposite Party No.1, owner of the Truck No. UGA 9547 and Rs. 6,000/- by the United India Insurance Company, insurer of Truck No. UGA 9547. 6- Feeling aggrieved the appellant/owner of the Truck has preferred this appeal. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded an exorbitant amount of compensation. The Tribunal has ignored the evidence on record and passed the award on conjectures and surmises, hence the amount of damage awarded in favour of the claimant should be reduced. 9- I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Although the claimant has claimed huge amount under different head but the Tribunal has awarded the following sums- (1) Rs. 1,03,916-00 towards repair and new parts inserted in the damaged truck. To prove its case the department has filed on record the settlement of account and departmental work card and list of the parts which were got repaired and inserted in the truck. (2) Rs. 3,954/- towards crane charges, and expenses for carrying the truck from place of accident to Kalagarh workshop. (3) Rs. 64,480/- as loss suffered due to the accident because the Steel Wire Rope could not reach at the site. The loss was assessed @ Rs. 806/- per hour for five days, as the machine remained idle for 5 days. 10- In this way a total compensation of Rs. 1,72,350/- has been awarded as damage suffered by the claimant/department. I find the Tribunal has adopted proper approach in assessing the damage and loss to the claimant suffered due to the accident. To prove the expenses of repairs and new parts inserted in the truck, the claimant has filed the departmental work card and assessment of account. The appellant/opposite party did not adduce any evidence to rebut the reliability and genuineness of the above documents filed on behalf of the department/claimant. Therefore, in my opinion the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable amount to the claimant. The liability of the Insurance Company has rightly been fixed upto the limit of Rs. 6,000/- as per the specific provision under the Motor Vehicles Act. 11- In view of above discussion, I do not find any force in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 22-7-95 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP