IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 90 of 2007() -------------------------------- AGAINST OPMV.651/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP (MV) ------------------------------------------------ CHERIYAN DAVID, S/O.DAVID, KOLADY HOUSE, RESIDING AT COURT STOP, KUNNAMKULAM P.O., THALAPPILY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN OP (MV) ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.V.JOVY, CHEROTH HOUSE, CHALAKUDY P.O. 2. M.T.JINTO, S/O.THOMAS, MANGALI HOUSE, ELINJIPARA P.O. 3. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vsv M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.90 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in O.P.(MV)No.651 of 2001. It was an application for awarding damages to the vehicle that had sustained extensive damages. The Tribunal, on the basis of Ext.A11 which is a surveyor's report awarded Rs.5,600/- for actual labour charges and 50% of the amount of Rs.11,810/- for spare parts. The Tribunal thereby awarded a sum of Rs.13011/-. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal was not right in deducting depreciation. The Karnataka High Court in the decision reported in M.R.Narahari Pandit v. Veenadevi Jalan and others (1997 ACJ 245) held that it is not correct. When the vehicle in question sustained damages in order to put the vehicle on a roadworthy condition it requires repair by replacing new spare parts and the actual cost of the new spare parts was to be given to the owner of the vehicle. Therefore MACA 90/2007 -:2:- deduction is not permissible. 3.A Division Bench of this Court in MACA No.693 of 2004 also took the view that no deduction need be made. Therefore the question of deducting 50% of the depreciation does not arise. 4. At the same time a mere surveyor's report is not the substitute to show that there had been purchase of spare parts worth Rs.11,810/- and labour charges of Rs.5,600/- had been paid. It has to be supported by valid documents. It is absent in this case. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and the appellant herein is directed to produce documents to show that he had actually purchased spare parts and had incurred labour charges. When it is proved the Tribunal is directed to give compensation for that amount spent without deducting any depreciation. Both sides are permitted to adduce evidence both oral and documentary in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26.8.2008. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- MACA 90/2007 -:3:-