IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 1602 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.1132/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- 1. KUNHIPARAMBATH CHATHU, S/O.SANKARAN, KUNHIPARAMBATH VEEDU, P.O.PERINGATHOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KELU KUMARAN, S/O.KUNHUKAKANNAN, BUSINESS PAZHAYATH THAZHEKUNIYIL, P.O.PERINGATHOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. C.KANTASWAMY, S/O.CHINNA GOWDA, MARUTHY NAGAR, THURIYOOR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, SELAM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 2. R.GANESHAN, AGED 44, S/O.RAMASWAMY, 32-A, TRICHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU. ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1602 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. Appellants 1 and 2 herein are the first claimant and the legal heir of the second claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.1132/1997 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation on account of the damages sustained to the shop buildings owned by the claimants, when it was hit by a lorry bearing Registration No.TN.28/6337. For the purpose of assessing damages, there is Ext.B1 report produced by the approved Surveyor of the third respondent-Insurance Company, estimating the damages at Rs.98,093/-. Ext.C1 report of the Advocate Commissioner deputed at the request of the claimants is also available on record. In Ext.C1 commission report filed before the Tribunal along with estimate prepared by a qualified Engineer, the total damage is assessed at Rs.3,54,093/-. With respect to Ext.B1 report of the approved Surveyor, the Tribunal found that the report is not accompanied by any valuation 2 statement and therefore, it is not acceptable. While considering Ext.C1 commission report it is found that no depreciation was calculated on the value of the building, which admittedly is about 40 year old. The Tribunal found that when the building is 40 year old, atleast 50% deduction ought to have been made on account of depreciation. Further, it is pointed out that the building which was damaged is an old building with tiled roof, whereas the assessment is made based on the cost to be incurred for putting up a new concrete building with all fittings and fixtures. Hence it is found that the estimation made by the Advocate Commissioner does not correspond with the actual damage sustained to the building, which was 40 year old. However, considering the entire aspects, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,21,228/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Taking note of the fact that the claim is of the year 1997 and that the award was passed only in the year 2004, the amount which the appellants have received including the interest is the reasonable compensation corresponding to 3 the damages sustained to the old building. In the result, we do not find any ground to enhance the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms