Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs George Ninum on 15 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ1095, 2000(5)KARLJ213
Author: H.N. Narayan
Bench: H.N. Narayan
JUDGMENT H.N. Narayan, J.
1. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Tribunal in a motor accident which occurred on 13-3-1994 at about 7.45 p.m., involving a car bearing No. KA 05-M 5709 and B.T.S. bus bearing No. CAT 157. The front right side portion of the said car was demaged. One Sri George Ninum represented by his Power of Attorney Holder Anwar, presented a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming damages of Rs. 50,000/- which includes the expenditure incurred for treatment of the driver of the car, the mental torture and agony and general damages suffered by the owner of the said ear. The K.S.R.T.C. has resisted the claim on three grounds, viz., that the claimant was not the owner of the said car, there was no negligence on the part of the K.S.R.T.C. driver and damages claimed are not proved. The Trial Court, however, rejected these objections and allowed the claim in part awarding a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, the legality of which is questioned by the respondent K.S.R.T.C. in this appeal.
2. Sri D. Vijaya Kumar, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the claim petition itself is not maintainable as there is no material to show that the said car belonged to the George Ninum, who in turn executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Anwar to present the claim petition before the Tribunal and consequently the documents Exs. P. 6 and P. 7 - two receipts produced by the claimant do not show that the amount spent was only towards the damage portion. On the other hand, the car was completely repaired.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, pleaded more time for him tc produce necessary material to answer these contentions raised by the appellant. This Court has granted him several adjournments to produce the necessary documents as additional evidence in the appeal. However, the respondent has not availed that opportunity of producing the relevant material.
4. The short question for consideration is:
Whether the impugned order is not justifiable?
5. The first contention canvassed by the Counsel for the appellant is clearly sustainable. The respondent has not produced any material to show that he was the owner of car bearing No. KA 05-M 5709 as on the date of the accident dated 13-3-1994. Further, he has not produced anything to show that he appointed one Anwar as his Power of Attorney, to present the claim petition. The petition itself is not maintainable on this ground and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
6. Secondly, Exs. P. 6 and P. 7, which are produced by the claimant where reliance is placed on them by the claimant, the claimant is claiming special damages which are required to be proved like any other claim. In such circumstances, mere production of a document is no proof of the claim at all. The author of those two documents is not examined. The Mechanic who repaired the car is not examined. Absolutely, there is no whisper regarding the actual expenditure incurred by the alleged owner. The Tribunal has somehow wriggled out of this situation only to award some compensation on the ground that the motor accident has occurred in which a car was damaged. It is not sufficient to award compensation specially in the case of special damages, in the absence of these essential materials before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order.
7. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is set aside.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be returned to the appellant.