Ddistrict Insurance Officer vs C.Rajan on 22 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA.No. 306 of 2003(B)


1. DDISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. C.RAJAN,S/O.BHASKARAN,44 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. M.JAGAJEEVAN,

3. PARAMMAH AMBUJAKSHAN,S/O/NANU,

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN

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

 Dated :22/12/2009

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                   ...........................................
                     M.F.A.No.306 OF 2003
                  .............................................
          Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred by the State Insurance

Department against the award passed by the Claims

Tribunal, Thalassery in OP(MV)No.584/1996. It was an

application filed for damages sustained to the lorry owned

by the claimant. The Tribunal on a consideration of the

materials awarded a sum of Rs.56,416/= in this case.

2. The learned counsel for the claimant strongly

contends before me that the insurance department cannot

challenge the quantum as it is not a defence available to it

unless an application is filed under Section 170 of the Motor

Vehicles Act and get the permission to challenge on all

grounds. Under Section 149, specific defences available

to the insurance company are made mention of and the

right to seek permission of the court under Section 170 of

the Motor Vehicles Act is reserved on the grounds

mentioned therein.

3. I had gone through the entire case records and I do

: 2 :
M.F.A.No.306 OF 2003

not find any application moved by the insurance department

under Section 170 to contest the claim on other grounds. It

is also a well settled principle that the insurer cannot take

plea about anything which is not mentioned in Section 149

of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is non-open to the insurance

company to question the quantum as well. Now to avoid

technicality, I may just consider its merits as well. It can

be seen that a surveyor’s report is filed supported by

purchase of spare part bills and labour charges. It is true

that the vehicle is of the year 1979. When the vehicle is

totally rendered useless on account of the accident, then the

question of value of the vehicle and also salvage value can

be taken wherein model of the vehicle and depreciation

would become a very important issue. But when a

tortfeasor by his act causes damages to the vehicle and

that vehicle has to be used by repairing it, necessarily the

owner has to purchase spare parts in order to make the

vehicle in a roadworthy condition. So, purchase of spare

parts is necessitated by the act of the tortfeasors and it is

not a luxury that is granted to the owner of the vehicle. In

: 3 :
M.F.A.No.306 OF 2003

spite of that the Tribunal has reduced depreciation of 20%

for the spare parts and had granted the compensation. So

on merits as well, there is nothing to interfere with.

Therefore, from this discussion I hold that the appeal

is devoid of any merit and therefore, it is dismissed. The

State Insurance Department is directed to deposit the amount

within a period of 60 days from today.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE

cl

: 4 :
M.F.A.No.306 OF 2003

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

…………………………………….

M.F.A.No.306 OF 2003
………………………………………
22nd day of December, 2009

J U D G M E N T