JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: (Oral) - By this common order, I intend to dispose of two appeals bearing FAO No. 1955 of 1999 titled as, “Urmila vs. Satish Kumar and another” and FAO No. 1956 of 1999 titled as, “Neelu Gupta vs. Satish Kumar and another”, as the same have arisen out of the same award. 2. Urmila-owner of Maruti Car bearing registration No. DDQ-5398 filed claim petition No. 82 of 1996 titled as, “Urmila vs. Satish Kumar and another”, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/- on account of damage caused to the said car in a motor vehicular accident. 3. Neelu Gupta filed another claim petition No. 83 of 1996 titled as, “Neelu Gupta vs. Satish Kumar and another” seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by her in the same accident. 4. The case of claimants is that on 21.03.1996 at about 10:00 A.M claimant Neelu Gupta was going in her maruti car No. DDQ-5398 from Saharanpur to Chandigarh. When she reached near Sant Nischal Singh School, a bus bearing registration No. HNX 5973 of Haryana Roadways, Ambala Depot came from Jagadhari side. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Satish Kumar and hit the said maruti car and thereafter, the said bus hit a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. HNX 7300 and one cycle which were going on their correct side. Due to the impact of said accident, the maruti car was fully damaged. 5. According to the case of claimant Urmila, she is owner of Maruti Car No. DDQ-5398 and she had purchased the same for a sum of Rs.88,500/-. The car was totally damaged and the residue value of the car is Rs.28,000/-. So a sum of Rs.70,000/- was claimed. 6. Neelu Gupta filed claim petition claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by her in the said motor vehicular accident. It was pleaded by her that she received multiple and grevious injuries in the said accident and as such, a sum of Rs. One lac was claimed as compensation. 7. On put to notice, respondent No.1-driver of the offending bus admitted that he was driving the said bus on the date of occurrence at a very slow speed but pleaded that the accident had taken place in order to save Maruti Car No. DDQ- 5398. The fault was of the driver of said Maruti Car. 7. On put to notice, respondent No.1-driver of the offending bus admitted that he was driving the said bus on the date of occurrence at a very slow speed but pleaded that the accident had taken place in order to save Maruti Car No. DDQ- 5398. The fault was of the driver of said Maruti Car. The bus was being driven at a slow speed and on extreme left of the road. 8. Additional plea was also taken by the respondent that driver of Maruti Car No. DDQ-5398 is a necessary party. 9. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal :- 1. Whether the accident took place on 21.3.96 was because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, if so its effect ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of this accident, if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP 3. Relief. 10. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on file, returned the findings on Issues No.1 in favour of the claimants. However, regarding Issue No.2 i.e quantum, it was held by the Tribunal that Neelu Gupta has not produced any medical evidence or any other evidence supporting her case. So far as the claim petition filed by Urmila is concerned, that was also dismissed for want of any evidence. 11. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment, referred to above, the present two appeals have been filed which are disposed of vide this common order. F.A.O No. 1955 of 1999 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are summary proceedings. No doubt any mechanic has not been produced to prove document Annexure P-2 which is mechanic report. It is clear that there is complete damage to the car in question. The car was purchased for a consideration of Rs.88,500/-. As per certificate of mechanic, the car was badly damaged and its value cannot be more than Rs.28,000/-. So, a sum of Rs.70,000/- should have been allowed by the Tribunal. 13. In reply to the above noted submission, learned counsel for the respondent-State has supported the Award and has submitted that insurer of car in question has not been arrayed as party. The document has been simply tendered and as such, the same cannot be looked into. So, a sum of Rs.70,000/- should have been allowed by the Tribunal. 13. In reply to the above noted submission, learned counsel for the respondent-State has supported the Award and has submitted that insurer of car in question has not been arrayed as party. The document has been simply tendered and as such, the same cannot be looked into. So, prayer has been made for dismissal of the appeal. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 15. The claimant has produced on record Exhibit P1 Receipt issued by Lal Mohamad in which it is mentioned that consideration of the car has been received. Rs.40,500/- has been received through cash and Rs.48,000/- through demand draft. Exhibit P2 is the mechanic report in which it is mentioned that steering was bend, clutch and lever were also bend, engine was seized, horn was not in working condition, the battery and head light are broken, the radiator was also broken, the body was totally damaged, front bumper was also broken, the windows are also broken, left front rim was bend. This report was prepared by mechanic i.e Constable Roshan Lal in FIR No. 98/96 dated 21.03.1996 under Sections 279/337 IPC registered at Police Station City, Yamuna Nagar. No doubt, the claimant is negligent in producing the evidence but the report of mechanic, which cannot be said to be wrong in any manner, prove the fact that there was extensive damage to the car. 16. So, keeping in view whole of the evidence available on file, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met in case a sum of Rs.25,000/- is allowed to the claimant in respect of damage to the car. 17. So far as the claim of claimant claiming Rs.70,000/- is concerned, that cannot be accepted for want of evidence. According to Exhibit P1, Rs.48,000/- was paid through a demand draft and another sum of Rs.40,500/- was paid in cash. No document regarding payment in cash is produced on file. Moreover, model of the car was 1988 and it cannot be valued at Rs.88,500/-. 18. So far as submissions made by learned State counsel that Insurance Company of the car has not been arrayed is concerned, it is not a ground to discard the claim. No document regarding payment in cash is produced on file. Moreover, model of the car was 1988 and it cannot be valued at Rs.88,500/-. 18. So far as submissions made by learned State counsel that Insurance Company of the car has not been arrayed is concerned, it is not a ground to discard the claim. From the copy of insurance policy, it is revealed that the said vehicle was insured only for third party and not for own damage. 19. So, in these circumstances, the claimant could not claim any amount from the Insurance company of car on account of damages to the car. 20. Consequently, the appeal is partly accepted and the appellant is held entitle to claim Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation. F.A.O No. 1956 of 1999 21. So far as the present appeal regarding injuries sustained by Neelu Gupta in the said accident is concerned, except bald statement made by the claimant, there is no evidence on file. No MLR or any medical evidence has been produced nor any disability certificate or details of injury has been given. 22. The Parliament in its wisdom has enacted Section 173 Clause-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in which it is mentioned that appeal is not competent in case the amount involved is less than Rs.10,000/-. From the evidence on file, it cannot be said that the amount involved is more than Rs.10,000/-. 23. Consequently, the appeal of Neelu Gupta claimant claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by her in the accident, stands dismissed. 24. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------