Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 290 (JK)

UOI v. Kashmir Goods Service

2020-07-03

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2020
ORDER (ORAL) This appeal has been filed by the Union of India seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide its award dated 12.12.2013 passed in file No.868/2008 titled “Union of India v. M/S Kashmir Goods Service and others. 2. The enhancement of compensation is sought by the Union of India primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has totally misread the evidence, particularly the statement of PW Major Kirti Mundle and came to the erroneous conclusion that the total loss suffered by the vehicle of the appellant was only Rupees one lac, whereas as per the loss assessment statement placed on record and the statement of PW Major Kirti Mundle, it was amply established that the vehicle had suffered a damage to the tune of Rs.7,74,823.40. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find no infirmity in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 4. The loss assessment statement which was appended by the appellant with their objections before the Tribunal was not proved by recording the statement of persons from the workshop, who had prepared and signed the same. PW Major Kirti Mundle had neither prepared the loss assessment statement, nor had signed it. 5. In his statement, PW Major Kirti Mundle, instead of proving and explaining the contents of loss assessment statement, has categorically stated that the damage to the vehicle was to the extent of Rs. Rs.7,74,823.40, whereas the value of the vehicle/salvage which is with the appellant is anywhere between six to seven lacs. There was no other evidence led by the appellant. 6. The Tribunal relying upon the statement of lone witness of the appellant, namely Kirti Mundle, came to the just conclusion that total loss suffered by the vehicle of the appellant was only Rupees one lac and, therefore, passed the award accordingly. The insurance Company has been directed to pay the amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the insured. 7. I find no illegality in the impugned award. The plea of the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is, thus, found not substantiated by any evidence on record. The appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. I find no illegality in the impugned award. The plea of the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is, thus, found not substantiated by any evidence on record. The appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The insurance company to satisfy the award immediately and, in any case, within four weeks from today, if not already done.