JUDGMENT
A.G. Qureshi, J.
1. The appellants have filed this appeal aggrieved by the award dated 30.3.1981 passed by the second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in claim case No. 108 of 1979.
2. The respondent No. 1 M.P. Rajya Parivahan Nigam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Nigma’ has filed a claim petition before the lower tribunal under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that on 21.12.78 near the culvert of Koram river on the Bombay-Agra road an accident took place because of the rash and negligent act of driver respondent No. 2 Rafiq Khan while driving truck registration Number MPI.3457, who while driving the truck rashly and negligently dashed against the vehicle of the Nigam bearing No. MPI-6347 driven by its driver Rashid casually and with a normal speed. Due to the dash by the aforesaid truck the bumper, the door on the driver’s side of the bus and the dash board were damaged and the front portion of the body was also bent. For getting the aforesaid damages repaired the Nigam had spent Rs. 2000/- and for sending the bus for repairs to the workshop the Nigam incurred an expenditure of Rs. 300/-. The Nigam also suffered a loss of income at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per day for 15 days. As such a claim of Rs. 20,000/- was made.
3. The claim was resisted by the present appellants on the ground that the driver of the bus of the Nigam was responsible for the accident.
4. The learned Tribunal, after recording the evidence of both the parties passed an award in favour of the applicant for Rs. 2050/- with interest and costs. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award the appellants have filed this appeal.
5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants Shri Behl the award is erroneous because the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that for want of vouchers no amount could be awarded on account of repairs. The other contention of shri Behl is that no amount could be awarded for loss of income as the damages on that account is not permissible under the law.
6. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the Nigam Shri Dilliwal supported the finding of the lower tribunal and argued that the court has already awarded a very low amount as compensation and, therefore, there is no case for interference, with the aforesaid award.
7. It is not disputed before me that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver respondent No. 2 and the finding of the learned Tribunal in that behalf also appears to be based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. As regards the damages for repairs the lower Tribunal has raised issue No. 2 and after discussing the evidence it has come to a conclusion that for want of evidence it cannot be held proved that the Nigam spent Rs. 2000/- on repairs. In my opinion the Finding of the learned Tribunal is proper on this point because when according to the witneses of the Nigam the vouchers of the repairs were available in the office they should have been produced before the court and without their production the lower court was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the Nigma. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Rajkumar v. Mahendra Singh and Ors. 1984 JLJ 696 has taken a similar view where in it has been held that when the receipt and vouchers have not been filed an adverse inference has to be drawn against the party not producing the same. Although lower Tribunal has held that the expenses on repairing have not been proved by the Nigma, still the Tribunal held that for taking the bus from the accident site to the workshop the Nigam would have entailed an amount of Rs. l000/- as expenses. In my opinion awarding of this amount towards the expenses for towing the vehicle form the accident spot to the Mhow Dept including the expenses on the staff who were in towing the vehicle to the workshop cannot be held to be unreasonable. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1000/- allowed by the lower Tribunal on that account does not appear to be unreasonable.
8. The lower tribunal has also awarded Rs. 1050/- towards the loss of income to the Nigam on account of the accident, because according to the Nigam due to the accident the motor could not operate on the route and thus caused loss of income to the Nigam. But in my opinion award on that count could not be given in favour of the Nigam in view of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A Division Bench of this court in Rajkumar v. Mahendra Singh and Ors. (supra) has held that the word ‘damages’ or ‘damage’ used in Section 110 of the Act means injury to any property involved in the accident due to the use of the motor vehicle. The use of the word ‘damage’ in plural in the body of Section 110(1) and that of singular in the proviso doesn’t make any difference. A Claim for loss of business on account of vehicle remaining idle during repairs is not damage to the property of owner, but may be damage or loss of owner. The Claims Tribunal is not empowered under Section 110, of the Act to entertain such a claim. As such in view of the aforesaid D.B. authority the lower tribunal was clearly in error in awarding Rs. 1050/- as damages to the respondent No. 1 on account of loss of income.
9. In the result the award of Rs. 1000/- towards expenses for lowing the vehicle from the accident spot to the workshop is maintained. However the award of Rs. 1050/- awarded to the respondent No. 1 towards loss of income is set aside. Consequently this appeal is allowed partly. The impugned award for Rs. 2050/- given in favour of respondent No. 1 is set aside instead an award of Rs. 1000/- is passed in favour of the respondent No. 1 towards damages caused to the respondent No. 1 due to the accident because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to get interest on the aforesaid amount from 20.6.79 till its recovery at the rate award by the lower Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case the cost of the claim case before the Tribunal and before this court shall be borne by the parties as incurred. The award is modified accordingly.