IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 MACA.No. 745 of 2007(C) ---------------------- OPMV.1219/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MADURAI DIVISION III, NAGERCOIL. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MADHUSOODANAN NAIR, S/O DHAMODHARAN NAIR, CHUZHINILATHU PUTHENVEEDU, KORANAMCODE, KOTTAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MOHANDAS, S/O PODIKUTTY NADAR, TATTAKKADU PUTHENVEEDU, KANJAPURAM P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.745 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV)No.1219/00. The case arises out of damages sustained to a building on account of the dashing of a Tamil Nadu state Road Transport Corporation bus to the building of the claimant in the case. Portion of an old building and another portion of a new building got damaged and the claimant had prayed for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation. The Transport Corporation has totally denied and contended that it is not liable to pay that much as compensation. 2. It is always to be stated in a case of this nature compensation cannot be fixed with precision because so many imponderables and other eventualities have to be taken into consideration. The data is in the form of a report Ext.C2, submitted by an expert. He is a Civil Engineer. He had inspected the property and prepared two Schedules, 'A' relating to the old portion of the building and 'B' relating to the new MACA 745/2007 2 portion of the building. A perusal of his report would show that virtually he has submitted the report, by suggesting replacement of the entire materials with new materials or in other words when the replacement is done that almost amounts to a new building. In such a contingency it is necessary to have the depreciation deducted from the compensation to be awarded. Even as PW2 he has admitted that depreciation has to be calculated. Further, it is true that there is no much materials available to find out the exact age of the old building. It is stated that new building has been constructed two years back. In order to have an adjudication a probable and reliable guess work has to be done with respect to depreciation. 3. Therefore, I feel that in this case 25% deduction for depreciation can be had for the old building and 10% deduction can be had for the new building. When it is done the value after depreciation for the old building will come to Rs.43,974/- and that of the new building would come to Rs.31,316/- making total of Rs.75,290/- which is rounded as Rs.75,300/-. The Tribunal has awarded an interest of 9%. But, it has to be born in mind that it MACA 745/2007 3 is with respect to damages for immovable property and the normal interest rate that is awarded is only 6%. 4. In the result, appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant is awarded damages of Rs.75,290/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition namely 30.11.2007 till realisation. The first respondent is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 90 days from today. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl The date “30.11.2007” occurring in the 4th line of 4th paragraph of the judgment dated 21/05/2008 in M.A.C.A.No.745/2007 is corrected as “30.11.2000” as per order dated 08/07/2009 in IA 1661/2009 in M.A.C.A.745/2007. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)