IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 10 of 2006() --------------------- OPMV.387/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- JOY BABU, PUNNELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THAZHEKKAD P.O., KUZHIKATTUSSERY DESOM, THAZHEKKAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOSEPH, S/O. DEVASSY,CHENGINIMATTOM HOUSE, CHALAKKUDY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THANKAM BALAKRISHNAN, `ROHINI', PONNAMPARA, PERINGOM P.O., PAYYANNUR. 2. JANARDHANAN. T.P., S/O. C. GOVINDAN, THAVARAL HOUSE, CHENGAYI, CANNANORE. 3. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., SOUTH BAZAR, TEMPLE ROAD, PAYYANNUR-670 307. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN FOR R1 SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1 SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R3 SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF FOR R3 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R3 SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.10 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent. The appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for damage sustained to the appellant's car in an accident caused by a vehicle insured by third respondent. The main grievance of the appellant is that the MACT reduced depreciation while granting compensation for replacement of parts. Counsel submitted that parts have to be replaced with new ones and there is no justification for reducing the value of parts by way of depreciation. On going through the award we find that the damage noted in appellant's vehicle by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector were at variance with the damage noted by the Surveyor. The MACT also has not placed much reliance on Surveyor's report. The award itself is based on estimation of value of spare parts by the MACT because appellant or the Surveyor did not even verify or give the details of price of each and every spare part to be replaced. Since the compensation awarded is based on estimation, we do not think there is any scope for considering whether 2 depreciation should be deducted or not because actual value of spares itself was not available. The appellant's car was admittedly a foreign car of 1991 model. Considering the nature of damage sustained as disclosed by records, we do not think there is any scope for enhancement of total compensation awarded by the MACT which is Rs.62,000/-. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms