High Court Kerala High Court

Cheriyan David vs C.V.Jovy on 14 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Cheriyan David vs C.V.Jovy on 14 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 90 of 2007()


1. CHERIYAN DAVID, S/O.DAVID,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. C.V.JOVY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. M.T.JINTO, S/O.THOMAS,

3. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.BABY

                For Respondent  :SRI.A.R.GEORGE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :14/07/2008

 O R D E R
                           M.N.KRISHNAN, J
                       =====================
                          MACA No.90 OF 2007
                       =====================

                  Dated this the 14th day of July 2008

                               JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in O.P.(MV)No.651 of 2001. It was an

application for awarding damages to the vehicle that had sustained

extensive damages. The Tribunal, on the basis of Ext.A11 which is a

surveyor’s report awarded Rs.5,600/- for actual labour charges and 50% of

the amount of Rs.11,810/- for spare parts. The Tribunal thereby awarded a

sum of Rs.13011/-. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in

appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal

was not right in deducting depreciation. The Karnataka High Court in the

decision reported in M.R.Narahari Pandit v. Veenadevi Jalan and others

(1997 ACJ 245) held that it is not correct. When the vehicle in question

sustained damages in order to put the vehicle on a roadworthy condition it

requires repair by replacing new spare parts and the actual cost of the new

spare parts was to be given to the owner of the vehicle. Therefore

MACA 90/2007 -:2:-

deduction is not permissible.

3.A Division Bench of this Court in MACA No.693 of 2004 also

took the view that no deduction need be made. Therefore the question of

deducting 50% of the depreciation does not arise.

4. At the same time a mere surveyor’s report is not the substitute to

show that there had been purchase of spare parts worth Rs.11,810/- and

labour charges of Rs.5,600/- had been paid. It has to be supported by valid

documents. It is absent in this case. Therefore, the matter requires

reconsideration. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the

matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and the

appellant herein is directed to produce documents to show that he had

actually purchased spare parts and had incurred labour charges. When it is

proved the Tribunal is directed to give compensation for that amount spent

without deducting any depreciation. Both sides are permitted to adduce

evidence both oral and documentary in support of their respective

contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on

26.8.2008.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

Cdp/-

MACA 90/2007 -:3:-