IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 866 of 2005() --------------------------------- OPMV.968/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT --------------------- BENNY K.PAUL, AGED 43, S/O.POULOSE, KEECHERIL HOUSE, MUDAKKUZHA P.O., VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS SRI.SUMESH.S.KALARICKEL SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. MOHANAN, S/O.BHASKARA PANICKER, PULLAN HOUSE, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE. 2. P.T.RAPHEL, RACHAN WOOD INDUSTRIES, PULLUVAZHY, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH. 4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., KOLENCHERY BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE - R4 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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/-