Judgment:
FAO No.194 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.194 of 2000 Date of Decision.30.06.2014 M/s Subhash Cotton Oil Mills, Kalanwali ......Appellant Versus Roop Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Shailender Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate for the insurance company. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. -.- K. KANNAN J.
1. The appeal is against the award passed by the Tribunal for ` 82,275/- on account of damage caused to the machinery and building and also on account of loss of business caused to ginnning factory by respondent No.1. It was alleged that on 21.05.1996, respondent No.1 came to see Subhash Chander who was the then proprietor of Hanuman Trading Company in bus bearing No.HR-39-1515 and when he was reversing the bus in a rash and negligent manner, he struck against the ginning shed of the factory causing damage to the shed and machinery installed in the shed. The respondent No.1 in his written statement denied the accident and said that he never visited the said premises on 21.05.1996 in the offending bus.
2. The Tribunal relied on the version of PW1 Subhash, proprietor of Hanuman Trading Company, who deposed that on Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.02 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.194 of 2000 -2- 21.05.21996 respondent No.1 came at about 7 PM to the factory on his bus No.HR-39-1515 to see him and when he was reversing the bus, suddenly brakes of the bus failed and it dashed against the wall of the ginning shed and pierced through the wall of the shed and held that the respondent No.1 was responsible for the accident.
3. The claimant in support of his claim for damage caused to the building and machinery, hired the services of PW2 N.K. Gupta, Surveyor and loss assessor who assessed the total loss at ` 1,17,625/-. The Tribunal did not fully rely on the report of PW2 and reasoned that the building and machinery was old and made a 40% depreciation to ` 1,17,625/- and assessed the loss on account of damage to the shed and machinery at ` 70,575/- and also assessed a further sum of ` 12,000/- on account of loss of income from the firm, totalling the amount of compensation payable at ` 82,575/-.
4. I find the approach of the Tribunal making a depreciation of 40% to be wholly erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have provided for the whole amount when there was cogent evidence produced by the claimant. I will provide for full amount as assessed by the surveyor through his report Ex.P2 at ` 1,17,625/-. The amount in excess over what has already been assessed by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal.
3. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 30, 2014 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.02 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh