IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 1792 of 2006() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1771/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN O.P: ------------------------ JOHNY, S/O. LATE JOSEPH, KUTTIPURATHU VEEDU, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.B.MOHANLAL SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH SMT.M.M.POORNIMA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE O.P: --------------------------- 1. OMANAKUTTAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, KOCHUKONATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, THULASSI MUKKU, KUMMIL, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. C.K. ANILKUMAR, CHITILEKATHU HOUSE, VADAKKAN KOTTAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KSFE BUILDING, CHINAKKADA, KOLLAM. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KUNDARA,KOLLAM. R3 BY ADV. MR .N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN R4 BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1792 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Claims Tribunal, Kollam in OP(MV)No.1771/1998. The claim petition was one for damages sustained to an ambassador car owned by the claimant in a road accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/= and it is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. The 4threspondent in this case is United India Insurance Company. The vehicle is insured with the New India Insurance Company and therefore the function of United India Insurance company hereafter need not be insisted for proper a disposal of the case. 3. Now turning to the facts of the case. The claimant had claimed a total damage of Rs.95,000/=. It is supported by a survey assessment for Rs.88,830/=. Ext.A7 is a report wherein Rs.24,150/= is claimed as labour charges and cost of spare parts is Rs.64,680/=. In order to substantiate that contention, I am informed that the claimant has examined the surveyor as well as the person who had : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1792 OF 2006 prepared the bill for purchase of spare parts. The Tribunal had arrived at a decision that since the ambassador car is of the year 1976 it may be incorrect to grant an amount of Rs.88,830/= and therefore on the basis of conjectures and surmises granted damage of Rs.10,000/=. I am afraid that the said approach is totally erroneous. When the matter comes up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has to consider the legal impact and suppose a vehicle of yester years is involved in an accident and the owner wants to have the vehicle repaired and used, for that purpose one cannot outrightly reject the claim that the vehicle's damage cannot be granted as claimed. The question of such a position arises in cases where the vehicle is totally damaged and it has become only of a scrap value. There is no such contention for that purpose in this case. The other questions are that whether there must be depreciation allowed for the value of the spare parts and whether one is entitled to claim total labour charges for the repair of the vehicle. The Tribunal did not go through the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 at all in discussing the matter. : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1792 OF 2006 4. Therefore, the matter requires much consideration at the hands of the court below. I also find a contention raised to the effect that the third party damage is limited to Rs.6,000/= by virtue of the policy. But the Tribunal has observed that it is not there in the policy. Since the matter is going back that also be looked into. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in accordance with the enunciated principles regarding damages to property. The Tribunal is also at liberty to consider whether there is any limited liability for the insurance company. For the above said purpose, all parties are permitted to adduce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3.11.2009. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.1792 OF 2006