Uoi & Anr. vs Deepak Goswami & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 940 Del

$~3
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Judgment delivered on: 20th February, 2014

+                          MAC.APP. No.566/2008
       UOI & ANR.                                            ..... Appellants
                           Represented by: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate.


                           Versus


       DEEPAK GOSWAMI & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                   Represented by: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 12.02.2007, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the basic principle governing the measure of damages for damage to property in tort as well as in contract is 'restitutio in integrum'.

3. Learned counsel submitted that question before the learned Tribunal was that as to what would be reasonable and fair compensation under the

circumstances to put the appellants so far as the money can, in the same position, had the accident not occurred.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the appellants and dismissed the claim petition.

5. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.01.1995, an army truck BA No.84-C-36789-K was met with an accident with maruti car No.DL-6C- 8087. Respondent No.1 Deepak Goswami, who was driving the above noted maruti car, has stated in the written statement that on 23.01.1995 at around 9.15 pm he was going from Prithviraj Road towards Aurbindo Marg as he had to go to the Safdarjung Airport Petrol Pump. He further stated that signal was green at the crossing; at that moment he was at the middle of Aurbindo Chowk; the army truck of the appellant bearing BA No.84-C- 36789-K TK 10N came at high speed and rammed into the respondent's moving car. It is further stated that Lans Naik M. Kutty was driving the offending truck in a rash and negligent manner and in respect of the accident; FIR No.13/95 was also registered against the driver of the army truck.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that after the accident, the army vehicle was not repaired, however, was downgraded from Class III to Class VI. To prove this fact, the appellants have produced document Ex.PW2/2, which revealed that value of Class III vehicle has been assessed at Rs.2,15,018/-, whereas value of Class VI vehicle has been assessed at Rs.64,512/- and in this respect taking the value of Class VI and

value of Class III vehicle, the approximate damages have been assessed at Rs.1,50,506/-.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has admitted that the police has not mechanically inspected the offending vehicle in FIR No.13/95. It is also admitted that the appellants have not spent anything on the repair of the said vehicle nor any evidence has been led before the learned Tribunal so as to prove the damages on the accidental vehicle.

8. It is noted that the letter dated 26.01.1995 written by Major U.S.Chhib, Officer Commandant to Head Quarter, Delhi Cantt Area indicates that there were minor damages to both vehicles.

9. After perusing the letter dated 26.01.1995, material on record and the evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that neither the military truck nor the military person suffered any injury.

10. It is a matter of fact that the petition was filed before the learned Tribunal on the basis of the reduction in the value of the vehicle which was reflected only in the records of the appellant.

11. It is also an admitted fact that the accident occurred between the maruti car and an army truck, however, there is no record or proof that while hitting the said maruti car, the truck had suffered any damage. It is also difficult to believe that the truck hits the maruti car and the truck being so sturdy got damage. The claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be filed for a compensation for the injury to a person or a property involved in the accident.

12. However, in the present case, the appellants have failed to prove that the said truck got any damage in the accident. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

SURESH KAIT, J.

FEBRUARY 20, 2014 Sb/jg