IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 MFA.No. 306 of 2003(B) ---------------------- OPMV.584/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 3 IN OP.(M.V.) ------------------------------------------------- DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONERIN OP (MV) ---------------------------------------------- 1. C.RAJAN,S/O.BHASKARAN,44 YEARS, PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, THATTIYODE,P.O.KOODALI. 2. M.JAGAJEEVAN, S/O.BHASKARAN,KUNNATHUR HOUSE KOTTOIR, KADACHRIRA. 3. PARAMMEL AMBUJAKSHAN,S/O. NANU, KEEZHATTOOR AMSOM, THIROOR DESOM. ADV. SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN SRI.A.S.BENOY SRI.P.M.PAREETH FOR R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.F.A.No.306 OF 2003 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred by the State Insurance Department against the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in OP(MV)No.584/1996. It was an application filed for damages sustained to the lorry owned by the claimant. The Tribunal on a consideration of the materials awarded a sum of Rs.56,416/= in this case. 2. The learned counsel for the claimant strongly contends before me that the insurance department cannot challenge the quantum as it is not a defence available to it unless an application is filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and get the permission to challenge on all grounds. Under Section 149, specific defences available to the insurance company are made mention of and the right to seek permission of the court under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is reserved on the grounds mentioned therein. 3. I had gone through the entire case records and I do : 2 : M.F.A.No.306 OF 2003 not find any application moved by the insurance department under Section 170 to contest the claim on other grounds. It is also a well settled principle that the insurer cannot take plea about anything which is not mentioned in Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is non-open to the insurance company to question the quantum as well. Now to avoid technicality, I may just consider its merits as well. It can be seen that a surveyor’s report is filed supported by purchase of spare part bills and labour charges. It is true that the vehicle is of the year 1979. When the vehicle is totally rendered useless on account of the accident, then the question of value of the vehicle and also salvage value can be taken wherein model of the vehicle and depreciation would become a very important issue. But when a tortfeasor by his act causes damages to the vehicle and that vehicle has to be used by repairing it, necessarily the owner has to purchase spare parts in order to make the vehicle in a roadworthy condition. So, purchase of spare parts is necessitated by the act of the tortfeasors and it is not a luxury that is granted to the owner of the vehicle. In : 3 : M.F.A.No.306 OF 2003 spite of that the Tribunal has reduced depreciation of 20% for the spare parts and had granted the compensation. So on merits as well, there is nothing to interfere with. Therefore, from this discussion I hold that the appeal is devoid of any merit and therefore, it is dismissed. The State Insurance Department is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from today. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.F.A.No.306 OF 2003 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.F.A.No.306 OF 2003 ............................................. 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T