JUDGMENT
P.C. Pathak, J.
1. This is an appeal by plaintiff (hereinafter referred as to Corporation) against the judgment and decree dated 7th March, 1980, in Civil Suit No. 9-B of 1977 in the First Additional District Judge, Btlaspur.
2. The Corporation filed the suit for damages amounting to Rs.23,000/-, on the allegations that its passenger bus going from Raipur to Ambikapur was damaged at railway crossing near Chakarmatha, Hini mines by railway Engine of South-Eastern Railway, at about 11 P.M., on 16-7-1976. The Engine dashed against the bus which got entangled in with the front portion of the Engine and the Engine carried away the bus to a distance of 80 yards. On 17-7-1976, the damaged bus was detached from the Engine. The bus was repaired in the work-shop of the Corporation. Rs. 14,509.27P. was claimed for repairing the bus, as detailed in the plaint. The Corporation also claimed Rs. 5,730-40P. for Joss of income @ Rs. 98.90P. for the period 16-7-76 to 12-9-76, during which the bus remained idle, Rs. 711.43P., ex-gratis payments made to (he injured passengers, Rs. 1,500/- for repair of the axle and the expenditure incurred for toeing the damaged bus to workshop at Raipur, Rs. 100/- for taking photographs, and Rs. 500/- for miscellaneous expenses, total Rs. 23,051.12P.
3. The respondent denied the claim in tote. The respondent also denied that it was liable to pay the damages so also the quantum.
4. Learned trial Court held that bus was damaged in an accident which was due to the negligence of the respondent’s employees, and the bus driver did not contribute to the said negligence at all. The claim of the Corporation was accepted for the sum of Rs. 12,921/- only. The claim for the rest was disallowed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the Corporation has filed the present appeal, claiming decree for additional sum of Rs. 10,079/-.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the trial Court erred in not allowing the entire claim of Rs. 14.509-27P., as per finding on issue No. 2. He also submitted that the trial Court wrongly disallowed the claim for loss of business for the entire period from 16-7-76 to 12-9-76 by wrongly concluded that the repairing could be done within one month only. Similarly the trial Court wrongly disallowed claim under other heads which are subject matter of the issue No. 3-C.
6. I will take up the first question whether Corporation’s claim for Rs. 14.509.27P. should have been allowed in full. The claim for this amount is discussed by the learned trial Court under issue No. 2. Reference was made to the statement of Dwarka Prasad (PW 6) who is the head mechanic of the workshop and Ramswroop (PW 7) the supervisor of the workshop. Dwarka Prasad stated that right side of the bus and the right chasis was badly squeezed which were repaired by him. He also obtained spare parts as per Ex. P/13 to Ex. P/65. He also stated that the parts obtained under Ex. P/13 to. Ex. P/65 were made use of for repair of the bus. In cross-examination he admitted that the spare parts which he made use of for repair of the bus were not verified by any senior officer of the Corporation. Ramswroop (PW 7) stated that whatever repairs were done in the bus are duly entered in Ex. P/66. In Ex. P/66 it is mentioned that the vehicle was being returned after body renovation and machanical works. The self starter, Dynamo, Cut-out etc. were retained as before. No repair was undertaken of the Engine and the pump which were intact according to Ex. P/66. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly held that the Corporation was entitled to repairing charges of Rs. 9291/- only. Since no repairing was done of the Engine, claim of Rs. 3936/- towards the repair of the Engine was rightly disallowed. Similarly the claim of Rs. 471.55P.for repairing of Dynamo, cut-out and self-starter was rightly disallowed in view of Ex. P/66. I, therefore, hold that the learned trial Court rightly disallowed the claim for Rs. 4528.27P., by its findings on issue No. 2.
7. It was next argued that the vehicle remained idle from 16-7-76 to 12-9-76 and, therefore, the loss of business should have been ascertained for the entire period. The submission can be accepted only if there is proof on record that the period from 16-7-76 to 12-9-76 was the period reasonably required for making the bus road worthy. My attention was drawn to statement of Dwarka Prasad (PW 6) who stated that repairing of the bus was completed in about two months. This statement is of no consequence, since it does not show that this was the period reasonably required for completing the repair of the vehicle. In the absence of any evidence, the trial Court has no option but to enter into the realm of conjuncture for ascertaining the mumber of days reasonably necessary for making the bus road worthy. There is no counter appeal by the Union of India. The amount of Rs. 2940/- allowed to the Corporation cannot be said to be unreasonable.
8. It was next argued that the Corporation paid a sum of Rs. 711.43P., to the injured passengers. In this connection, the Corporation examined Shekh Shariffudin (PW 4) who stated that sum of Rs. 100/- per individual was paid by Shri S.C. Gupta Security Officer, in his presence against their acknowledgements Ex. P/2 to Ex. P/8. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that there acknowledgements are only duplicates and the security officer was not examined. Both these criticisms cannot be accepted. Once the documents have been exhibited without any objection, their admissibility cannot be attacked on the ground that they are secondary evidence. I have perused these documents and found that they bear the original signatures of the passengers so also of the Doctors in whose presence the amount was paid. The statement has not been challenged seriously in the cross-examination. I, therefore, hold that the Corporation was entitled to the sum of Rs. 7U.43P. as represented Ex. P/2 to Ex. P/8, which is rounded upto Rs. 712/-.
9. The appellant also strenuously argued that the sum of Rs. 1,500/- and other miscellaneous expenses discussed under issue No. 3-C, should have been allowed. The learned Counsel could not point out any reliable evidence on record to show that sum of Rs. 1,500/- was spent towards the repair of axle and for toeing the bus from the site to workshop Raipur. Similarly, the alleged expenditure of Rs. 100/- for obtaining photographs was disallowed for want of proof. In my opinion, the trial Court was justified in disallowing this claim for want of evidence on record.
10. In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal partly succeeds. In addition to the amount decreed by trial Court, a decree for Rs. 712/- is passed in favour of the Corporation. The appeal in respect of rest of the claim is hereby dismissed. In view of the partial success of both, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.