IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 1631 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.2348/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: --------------------------------- K.J. JOHN, KALOOPARAMBIL HOUSE, UMBIDI P.O., THOTTACADU VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. DOMINIC DEVASSIA, MULLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR, VEROOR, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. DEVASSIA, S/O. VARGHESE, PLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHETHIPUZHA KADAVU BHAGOM, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.1631 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in OP(MV)No.2348/1995. This is the second round of litigation. Against the original award, MACA.No.114/2004 was filed and this Court remanded the case back to the trial court for fresh consideration. At the first instance Rs.9,000/= was awarded as damages. On remand after considering the entire materials, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/= but at the same time in the original award interest of 9% was awarded had been reduced to 6%. Dissatisfied with the quantum as well as the decrease in rate of interest, the claimant has come up before this Court. 2. I had perused the award and heard the argument of both the counsel appearing for the parties. The Tribunal did not appreciate certain documents produced by the claimant and in para-23 regarding the construction cost, the Tribunal felt that the wooden materials were purchased in : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.1631 OF 2005 1995 and the bill for construction is obtained in 1997. It also felt that evidence of some of the witnesses are necessitated and therefore awarded compensation at Rs.15,000/= whereby enhanced Rs.6,000/= from the original award. 3. I do not find any material to award a higher compensation. Therefore I confirm the compensation at Rs.15,000/= and it has to be stated that the claimant cannot be penalised for by reduction of interest. Since the Tribunal has awarded 9% and as there was no challenge against the same, it is only desirable that the said rate of interest is retained. In the result, the MACA is disposed of whereby an amount of Rs.15,000/= awarded as compensation is confirmed and the claimant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the petition till the realization Needless to say that the cost awarded by the Tribunal also is retained. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.1631 OF 2005 : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.1631 OF 2005