IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1566 of 2004() --------------------------------- OP.MV.1896/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------- JOLLY SUNNY W/O.SUNNY VARKEY, NEW RESIDING AT KALLOOR HOUSE, PLOT NO.II B, NEELIMA CLASSIC, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM FROM KALLOOT HOUSE, KALAKETTY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. K.P.MUNEER S/O.PARIKOCHU, RESIDING AT KIZHEDATHU HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE. 2. M.K.RASHEED, MANACKALPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADAKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHERUPUZHPAM BUILDINGS, P.B.NO. 47, MAIN ROAD, PALAI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN - R1 & R2 SRI.M.A.GEORGE - R3 SMT.DEEPA GEORGE - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1566 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV)1896/99. The vehicle involved in the road accident accident was a 1979 model ambassador car. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for damages with 6% interest. The court found that Ext. A7 series produced by the appellant is not satisfactory. It is neither a bill nor an estimate. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant had given me a copy of said document for perusal. On going through the same, I also find it very difficult to accept it for the reason that in the opening pages it appears to be only an estimate. If things are purchased, there would have been bills. Nothing is produced. It is also to be remembered that the model of the car is 1979 and the admitted repair is in the year 1999, i.e., after 2 decades. The court considered the motor vehicle inspector’s report and made an approximate extimate and granted an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. It is true that it may not be MACA No.1566/04 2 precise. But in motor accident claims a probable guess is also necessary for the Tribunal when materials are not available to arrive at a decision. Since Ext.A7 cannot be accepted legally, the probable guess has to be given effect and that is what has been done in this case. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the award passed by Tribunal. The MACA lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps