IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 2426 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.2208/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN THE OP(MV) --------------------------- THE GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRANSMISSION PROJECT, 38/2265- D, 2ND FLOOR, CHITTOOR ROAD, EKM, KOCHI-11, NOW OFFICE AT AYYAPPANKAVU TELEPHONE EXCHANGE COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM NORTH POST, KOCHI - 682 018. REP. BY SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, SETHU MADHAVAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE OP(MV) ------------------------------ 1. VENUGOPAL, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, (OWNER), ILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR SASTHA TEMPLE, SRM ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 2. KALYANASUNDARAM, AGED 53 YEARS, ILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR SASTHA TEMPLE, SRM ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.2426 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of January 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)No.2208 of 1998. The case relates to damages sustained by the car which belonged to the claimant. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.33,000/- and directed the insurance company to pay Rs.6,000/- and for the balance amount respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition are liable. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had erred in deducting 40% of the depreciation and the mode of depreciation also is incorrect. So far as the value of the spare parts is concerned, in an earlier decision, I had agreed with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in M.R..Narahari Pandit v. Veena Devi Jalan (1997 ACJ 245). A Division Bench of this Court also in MACA No.693 of 2004 held that it need not to be deducted. But, I am informed that another Division Bench in a later ruling had taken a view that deduction can be MACA 2426/2008 -:2:- made. If at all the deduction is to be made, it can be made only towards value of the spare parts and not of the labour charges. 3. In this case repair charges/labour charges is Rs.24,950/-. The bill for purchase of spare parts comes to Rs.22,126.44. It can be seen that the Tribunal has taken the view that the vehicle is of 1991 make and had deducted 40% depreciation. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to my notice the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report where the model of the vehicle is shown as 1996. So, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the depreciation. I feel it is sufficient if 25% is deducted for the value of the spare parts as depreciation. When it is done, 25% of Rs.22,126/- would come to Rs.5,531.50, i.e. the entitlement would be Rs.16,594.50 which I round as Rs.16,595/-. When it is added to the labour charges of Rs.24,950/-, the claimant will be entitled to Rs.41,545/-. Adding Rs.941/- towards Surveyor's fees, it will come to Rs.42,486/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.33,000/-. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.9,486/-, which I round as Rs.9,500/-. In the result, MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.9,500/- with 9% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition are directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of MACA 2426/2008 -:3:- receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till the amount is deposited, the interim order will continue. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-