IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 866 of 2005()
1. BENNY K.PAUL, AGED 43, S/O.POULOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MOHANAN, S/O.BHASKARA PANICKER,
... Respondent
2. P.T.RAPHEL, RACHAN WOOD INDUSTRIES,
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.,
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.K.KARNIS
For Respondent :SRI.LAL GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :16/06/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 866 OF 2005
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)968/99
whereby it awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/- for damages
sustained to a vehicle which was involved in a road accident.
A private surveyor was appointed and he had submitted a
report that including the spare parts and labour charges.
The amount will come to Rs.4,7491/-. The Tribunal held that
the surveyor’s report cover more than what is mentioned in
the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report and therefore
slashed down the compensation. An Asst. Motor Vehicle
Inspector’s report only gives a general details about the
damages and it may not contain precisely all the damages
sustained by the vehicle for the reason that the very purpose
of a Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report is to find out whether
there was any mechanical defect in the vehicle at the time of
the accident. But when a surveyor inspects the vehicle it is
M.A.C.A. 866 OF 2005
-:2:-
with a specific intention of finding out what all damages
really the vehicle had sustained on account of the accident.
One cannot brush aside the said report just because the
Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report has not been elaborate. I
disagree with the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal on that regard. The surveyor has been examined
and he had inspected the vehicle within three days from the
date of accident and all this will lend credence to the report
and though he has stated so many things about the
depreciation aspects etc. he had not taken note of that at all
to arrive at a final decision. So after discussion with the
counsel for both sides I think a reasonable amount can be
deducted for the purpose of the oldness of the vehicle. The
vehicle is of a make of 1996 and the accident had taken
place in the year 1999. For an year 10% depreciation can be
taken and for Rs.47,491/- it would come to Rs.14,247/- so
the balance amount would be Rs.33,144/- which can be
rounded as Rs.33,000/-.
M.A.C.A. 866 OF 2005
-:3:-
2. The Tribunal awarded an interest of 9%. But
generally for damages to the property the interest awarded
is only 6% and not 9% and that has to be reduced.
Therefore the MACA is partly allowed and a revised award is
passed as follows.
The claimant is awarded a compensation of
Rs.33,000/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date
of petition till realisation and the 3rd respondent is directed to
deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date
of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If already any amount
is deposited that can be given credit to and the balance need
to be deposited.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-