IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 339 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.616/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ TONY K.J., S/O.JOSEPH LATE KURUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, VALAPPAD POST, C/O.SUNNY PATTATH BUILDINGS, NEAR ST.JOSEPH COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY SHRI.JOHNY, S/O.JOSEPH KURUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. N.VIJAYAN, S/O.ELATH RAMANKUTTY MENON, METHALA, KODUNGALLUR. 3. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VAZHUTHAKKAD BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.339 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed compensation for damage caused to his property (telephone booth) in a motor accident. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed as compensation. The accident was admitted. Insurance liability was not disputed. The dispute was only about the quantum of compensation payable. The appellant did not choose to adduce any oral evidence. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. Ext.A6 is the photograph of the damaged property and Ext.A8 is the valuation statement. It is seen that the said valuation statement is prepared by the licensed engineer who appears to have done the work of repair for the appellant. No commission was taken out through court. It is not possible to ascertain on what date the inspection took place and what were the observations made at the inspection. Ext.A8 is only the valuation statement in which it is reported that a total amount of Rs.1,13,956/- is the abstract valuation of the building, “the M.A.C.A.No.339/09 2 amenities” and the compound wall. The Tribunal, on a consideration of Ext.A8, was not prepared to swallow the figures given in the said valuation statement. We find that a document was produced as scene mahazer before the Tribunal as Document No.3 (copy of which has been placed before us for perusal). The Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the basis of the materials available, the appellant is entitled to realise an amount of Rs.56,850/- as compensation. 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. The contention is that the entire amount shown in Annexure A8 must have been awarded. There is no basis for the Tribunal reducing the same by 50% and awarding only an amount of Rs.56,850/- as compensation, contends the counsel. 3. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The burden definitely is on the appellant to place satisfactory evidence before the Tribunal to show the actual quantum of loss suffered by the appellant. For obscure reasons, no commission has been taken out through court to assess the loss suffered. More surprisingly, the person who prepared Ext.A8 report has not even been examined. The submission that the documents were marked without objection is not an answer at all to the M.A.C.A.No.339/09 3 criticism that proper evidence to prove Ext.A8 has not been adduced. The learned counsel raises a question as to how half the amount has been awarded. In this appeal filed against the appellant, we need not go into that question in detail; but the fact remains that there is nothing to prove any satisfactory material to prove the precise quantum of loss suffered by the appellant. The tribunal appears to have engaged itself in justifiable guesstimation and in the totality of circumstances an amount of Rs.56,850/- is seen to be awarded, obviously assuming that the same represents the minimum indisputable loss suffered by the claimant. In any view of the matter, we need only mention that there is no justification in the claim for any higher amount on the basis of the materials made available before the Tribunal. 4, This M.A.C.A is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.339/09 4 M.A.C.A.No.339/09 5 R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009