AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—M.P. Janaki Ammal and Company is the appellant herein. The claim petition was filed by the appellant before
the Tribunal, seeking for compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- for the damage caused to its vehicle in the accident, occurred due to the negligent driving
of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the Dindugul Kottampatti Transport, the first respondent herein.
The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 29,817.15 and directed the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company to pay the said amount to the
claimant. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the quantum, the claimant has filed this appeal before this Court.
The claimant was doing ''Tourist Taxi"" business. The Tourist Van bearing registration No. TNR 9946 was belonging to them. On the early
morning of 16-1-1987, one Murthy of Madurai, booked the said vehicle for the family trip to Madurai, Thekkadi, Suruli, etc. The vehicle had left
at 5.45 a.m. When the vehicle reached near Upparpattivilakku at about 10.30 a.m. on the Theni to Cumbum Road, the bus bearing registration
No. TNW 9594 came in the opposite direction with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the Van TNR.9946.
As a result of the impact, the Van belonging to the appellant, got completely damaged Some of the passengers travelled in the Van and the driver
died at the spot. Therefore, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus.
The Van was kept at the workshop from 16-1-1987 to 11-5-1987, Therefore, towards the loss of income during that period and towards the
expenditure incurred for the repairs, the claimant, in the claim petition, sought Rs. 1.70.000/- as compensation.
The owner of the bus, first respondent herein, remained ex parte. The insurance company, second respondent herein, filed a counter.
During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PW.1, Lakshmanan, the Manager was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On
the side of the respondent, no evidence was adduced.
On analysis of the materials available on record, the Tribunal held that the claimant would be entitled to only Rs. 29,817.15 towards the
expenditure incurred for repairs and that it would not be entitled to any amount for the loss of income during the period when the vehicle was kept
idle. This award is under challenge in this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant would raise the following two contentions:-
The Tribunal ought to have considered the two receipts marked as Ex.A1 series which shows that on 13-4-83. Rs. 28.000/- was paid as
advance to the workshop and on 18-4-83, the balance amount of Rs. 29,817.15 was paid. But, the Tribunal accepted only one receipt i.e. for Rs.
29,817.15 and rejected the other receipt dated 13-4-83 on the ground that it was not an original one. Both the receipts are original. Therefore, the
claimant would be entitled to the entire amount of Rs. 57.817.15 i.e., ( Rs. 29,817.15 + Rs.28.000).
The vehicle was kept idle for about 118 days during which period the repairs were rectified. The loss of income suffered by the claimant would
also be taken to mean ""damages to the property"". Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount for that head also.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would resist the submission by stating that the claimant would not
be entitled to any amount for the loss of income as it would not include ""the damages to the property"".
On a careful consideration of the rival contentions in regard to the first point urged by the counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that the
Tribunal has committed a mistake in not taking into consideration of the original receipt dated 13-4-1983 by which it is shown that the claimant had
paid Rs. 28.000/- to the repairing Workshop i.e. Cheema Autokrafts, towards advance. The Tribunal was under the misconception that the said
receipt is not original and rejected the said claim. However, it awarded Rs. 29,817.15 on the basis of the receipt dated 18-4-1983,
On a careful perusal of the records, the receipt dated 13-4-1983 would show that it is also original, in which the signature of the person
concerned on behalf of the Cheema Autokrafts is found for the advance payment of Rs. 28,000/-. PW. 1 would also speak about both the
amounts and he would specifically state that he had incurred expenditure of Rs. 57,817.15 towards repairing charges in the Chief Examination
itself. Therefore, the award is liable to be modified to the effect that the claimant would be entitled to both the amounts i.e., Rs. 28,000/- + Rs.
29,817.15 = Rs. 57,817.15. The claimant is also entitled to get the above amount along with 12% interest per annum from the date of claim
petition till the date of payment. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified.
Regarding the second point. I am of the view that the claimant would not be entitled to any amount towards the loss of income sustained by the
claimant during the period when the vehicle was kept idle in the workshop for repairs. This aspect has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in
the decision reported in 1992 NRC 13 (Nesamony Transport Corporation Ltd v. Kochammal),
It is held by this Court that the expression ""''damage to property"" would take in only monetary compensation to set right the actual damage
caused to the property in an accident involving the use of a motor vehicle-The expression ""damage to any property of a third party"" has to be
necessarily restricted in its application to the actual damage caused to the property and cannot, in the absence of any indication in Section 110(1)
of the Act, be expanded.
The above view has also been taken in the following decisions:-
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhaskaran and Others,
2 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subhash Jain and Others, and
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Nathmal Bhajanka and Others,
The Division Bench of Kerala High Court, in the decision reported in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhaskaran and Others,
While elaborately dealing with this position of law, disagreed with the judgment of Karnataka High Court and held that by enacting Section 110 of
the Act, the Parliament never intended to confer jurisdiction on the Claims Tribunal to determine the damages falling under the head consequential
pecuniary losses suffered by a person in relation to torts concerning property. u/s 110 (1) of the Act. the State Government may, by notification,
constitute the Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving ""damages to any property of
a third party"". The words employed in the section, namely, ""for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents
involving damages to any property"" make it clear that the intention of the Parliament was to deprive the Civil Court of its jurisdiction to decide the
question pertaining to the basic pecuniary losses in relation to torts concerning property. This also would make it clear that the Parliament never
intended to have the ''consequential pecuniary losses"" suffered by a person on account of the damage to the property involved in the accident also
to be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal. If it had such an intention, the Parliament would very well make the said intention clear by using the
words'' and consequential loss of use loss of property: after the words ''damage to property'',
Under these circumstances, I am in entire agreement with the above decisions as the above view has been expressed after interpreting the
sections and the intention of the legislation.
The other contra judgments reported in 1993 ACJ 778 (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Pishori Lal) and Sri Ranganathar
Transports (P) Ltd. Vs. The Tanjore Co-oprative Marketing Federation Ltd., , rendered by the single Judge of this Court, may not be of any use
to this case, since the ratio has not been decided there.
Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the claimant/appellant would not be entitled to any other amount except the costs incurred
towards the damage to the property. However, it is made clear that on the other heads, the claimant is at liberty to file a civil suit as Section 110(F)
of the Act docs not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the same. With the above observations, the appeal is partly allowed. No
costs.