IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 1220 of 2010() ----------------------- OPMV.754/2003 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ GEORGE K.NINAN , AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SRI.K.C.NINAN, PARTNER, M/S.BABY MARINE INTERNATIONAL, THOPPUMPADY PO, THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE MANAGIG DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C, FORT PO,TRIVANDRUM-695 023. 2. V.SISUNADHAN PILLAI,S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI SREEVAS VEEDU, KALAKKODUCHERIYIL DESOM BHOOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 302. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VAZHUTHAKADU, TRIVANDRUM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1220 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.754/2003 on the file of Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. He is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL7B 7687 which sustained damages in a motor accident that occurred on November 10, 2002. The accident happened while deceased Antony was driving the said vehicle which is an insulated van along Thoppumpady-Aroor road and when he reached near Aroor-Edakochi bridge, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15/3774 driven by the second respondent came at a high speed from the opposite side and dashed against the insulated van of the claimant. Alleging negligence against the second respondent and claiming a damages of Rs.2,15,000/- the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending KSRTC bus remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the van was made only as a formal party in MACA.No.1220/2010 2 the O.P. The insurer of the KSRTC bus was subsequently impleaded as additional fourth respondent in the O.P. The fourth respondent admitted the policy, but contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the van. 3. This O.P. was jointly tried along with other O.Ps. filed by the injured persons in the accident and a common award was passed. The Surveyor who surveyed the insulated van was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting fourth respondent. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,05,295/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ? 6. PW1 surveyor has assessed a compensation of MACA.No.1220/2010 3 Rs. 2,07,589/-. Ext.A10 is the report of the Surveyor. Ext.A11 is the bill of the Surveyor and Ext.A12 is the photographs of the damaged vehicle. The damaged vehicle is a Swaraj Mazda van of 1991 model . The Tribunal took the labour charges shown in the report as Rs. 15,000/-. The Surveyor has assessed the cost of spare parts as 1,92,589/-. After depreciation , the Tribunal took the cost of spare parts as Rs. 96,295/- and after deducting scrap value, awarded Rs. 1,05,295/-. 7. Taking into consideration the nature of the damage caused to the vehicle and the fact that it was a 1991 model vehicle, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. It follows that the claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. That being so, the appeal has to be dismissed. In result, the appeal is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.1220/2010 4 MACA.No.1220/2010 5