Vijender Singh Malik, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer and cross -objection by Vaneet Kumar, respondent no. 1 are directed against the award dated 18.08.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short 'the Tribunal'). Vaneet Kumar, the cross -objector has been the claimant before the Tribunal. He sought compensation for the damage suffered by his TATA Indigo car bearing registration No. PB -11AE -1967 in a road side accident that took place on 20.05.2008. The claim petition brought by Vaneet Kumar under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been allowed vide award dated 18.08.2011 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - as compensation to the claimant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization thereof. While the insurer seeks reduction of the amount of compensation, the claimant seeks its enhancement. The facts relevant to the question in controversy are that the car has been 2005 model. It was totally damaged in the accident. By the total damage of the car, the claimant was left without vehicle as he had no money to purchase another vehicle.
(2.) THE claim -petition has been resisted by the respondents, who have not only denied the accident to have occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. PB -12H -7757 but have also denied the particulars about the vehicle as well as the claim of the claimant. Taking into account the evidence coming on record, learned Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - as compensation in favour of the claimant.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the vehicle was stated to have been lying with M/s. Deli Motor Garage at Bahadurgarh in Fatehgarh Sahib District. He has further contended that the insurance company applied for permission to get the car surveyed. In this regard respondent No. 3 deputed K.P.S. Oberoi, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to inspect the vehicle in the presence of the claimant. According to him, the vehicle was not available there and K.P.S. Oberoi, RW -1 was informed by the owner of the workshop that the claimant had sold the damaged vehicle which was got repaired by the purchaser and the vehicle was not available with him. He has further submitted that the vehicle was, thus, repairable and was sold by the claimant and, therefore, he was not entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/ - also. He has also referred to the statements of Rajesh Kumar Mangla, CW -1, a Surveyor and Loss Assessor as well as Deputy Singh Mann, CW -2, Works Manager and has submitted that their reports were not acceptable. Referring this court to the statement of Vaneet Kumar it is contended that the car was of the year 2005 and was purchased by the claimant in the year 2008 and as stated by him that the new car was of the price of 4 or 5 lacs, so the old car was not of this price even and, therefore, the Tribunal has awarded compensation on a higher side.;