IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1322 of 2008()
1. ABDULLAH KUNJU,
... Petitioner
2. ABDUL JABBAR,
3. THAHIRA BEEVI,
Vs
1. PASUPATHY, S/O. VELUCHAMI COWNDER,
... Respondent
2. VELLIGIRI,
3. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :28/10/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J
-----------------------
M.A.C.A.No. 1322 OF 2008
---------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(MV) No. 908/02. The
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with 7.5% interest in a
property damage case. It is against that decision the claimant has
come up in appeal.
2. Perused the award. The claim is for Rs. 88,000/-. An
estimate is prepared and person who prepared the estimate has
been examined as PW1. The Tribunal has considered the materials
elaborately and came to the conclusion that the assessment of PW1
is based not on real materials and hence it cannot be given any
fundamental value and rejected the same. A mere estimate is not
a substitute for the actuals. Not even a scrap of paper is produced
to prove that money has been expended for repairing the building.
The Tribunal has also very clearly observed that not even a tile is
broken in the accident. Suppose the impact had been so severe
atleast one would expect a tile to be broken in the accident. There
is nothing to show what is the age of the building. So the materials
M.A.C.A.No. 1322 OF 2008
-2-
supplied were totally unsatisfactory for arriving at a decision by the
Court. A property damage cannot be awarded on mere conjectures
and surmises. Therefore I find that the approach is only reasonable
because only a guess work can be made. Therefore I do not
propose to interfere with the decision.
M.A.C.A. lacks merit and accordingly dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vkm