IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1322 of 2008(F) ----------------------- OPMV.908/2002 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): ------------------ 1. ABDULLAH KUNJU, S/O. ABOOBAKER, PUTHENPARAMBU, KOMANA, AMBALAPPUZHA. 2. ABDUL JABBAR, THOWFEEK MANZIL (ETTANAPARAMBU), KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA. 3. THAHIRA BEEVI, W/O. ABDULLAH KUNJU, PUTHENPARAMBIL, KOMANA, AMBALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. PASUPATHY, S/O. VELUCHAMI COWNDER, 17/334, GANDHINAGAR STREET, MATHUKKARA, COIMBATORE. 2. VELLIAGIRI, S/O. KARUPPUSWAMY COUNDER, 10/48, MADHUKKARAI, COIMBATORE. 3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., COIMBATORE BRANCH. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1322 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(MV) No. 908/02. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with 7.5% interest in a property damage case. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Perused the award. The claim is for Rs. 88,000/-. An estimate is prepared and person who prepared the estimate has been examined as PW1. The Tribunal has considered the materials elaborately and came to the conclusion that the assessment of PW1 is based not on real materials and hence it cannot be given any fundamental value and rejected the same. A mere estimate is not a substitute for the actuals. Not even a scrap of paper is produced to prove that money has been expended for repairing the building. The Tribunal has also very clearly observed that not even a tile is broken in the accident. Suppose the impact had been so severe atleast one would expect a tile to be broken in the accident. There is nothing to show what is the age of the building. So the materials M.A.C.A.No. 1322 OF 2008 -2- supplied were totally unsatisfactory for arriving at a decision by the Court. A property damage cannot be awarded on mere conjectures and surmises. Therefore I find that the approach is only reasonable because only a guess work can be made. Therefore I do not propose to interfere with the decision. M.A.C.A. lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm