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. 82 of 2003(C) ---------------------- OPMV.199/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- PIOUS VARGHESE, S/O. KUNJUVAREED @ VARGHESE, MANGALY HOUSE, VATHAKKATTU, THURAVOOR, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE THETTAYIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. 2. ANTU, S/O. DEVASSY, NEELAMGAVIL HOUSE, THOLOOR VILLAGE, PARAPPUR KARAYIL, TRICHUR DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.02.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.82 of 2003 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT R.BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. Before the Tribunal, the appellant claimed Rs.1.32 lakhs as compensation for the loss suffered by him as a result of the damage caused to his car, which is a 1986 model Maruti car, in an accident. Damage caused to the car is not disputed. The accident took place on 19.09.1997. The car was 11 year old by then. A private surveyor was appointed by the appellant/claimant to assess the damage suffered by the car and the loss. By Ext.A38 report, the said surveyor, who was examined in court as PW32, assessed the loss suffered to be Rs.84,000/- by the cash loss settlement method and at Rs.1,18,004/- on the basis of repair of the car. PW3, the surveyor, opined that in the given circumstances, Rs.84,000/- can be reckoned as the loss on the basis of the cash loss method. In addition to the oral evidence of PW3 and Ext.A38, the Tribunal had before it Ext.A3 report of the Motor Vehicles' Inspector who M.A.C.A. No.82 of 2003 2 inspected the vehicle as also Ext.A42 photographs of the damaged vehicle. The Tribunal was not prepared to accept these pieces of evidence completely. The Tribunal felt that award of an amount of Rs.30,000/- alone would be reasonable. Accordingly the impugned award was passed. 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW3 having issued Ext.A38 and it having been proved satisfactorily by the evidence of PW3 that Rs.84,000/- is the loss suffered, the Tribunal was not justified in slashing the amount to Rs.30,000/-. There is no justification for such a course adopted by the Tribunal. 3. We have heard both the counsel. We have rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs. The car was a 1986 model car and had already been in use for more than 11 years when it met with the accident. It must also be noted that the appellant did not think it necessary to apply for issue of a commission from the Tribunal to get the loss suffered assessed authentically after giving notice to the respondent. It is also seen, and the Tribunal specifically made note of that, the appellant has not chosen to reveal to the Tribunal the amount of M.A.C.A. No.82 of 2003 3 money he realised by selling the car. We are, in these circumstances, unable to precisely fix the quantum of loss authentically and specifically. But all the same, we are satisfied that the appellant has suffered loss and the amount fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- is not completely just and fair. The appellant is entitled for further amounts. We are now called upon to advert to all the materials and ascertain the minimum irreducible loss which the appellant must have suffered. The appellant must certainly be blamed for not making more authentic data for proper assessment of the loss. No attempt has been made to get the loss assessed through a commission appointed by the Tribunal. No attempt has been made to get the assessment done by a private surveyor with notice to the respondent. In these circumstances, we can award only such an amount as compensation which we think is the irreducible minimum amount of loss suffered by the appellant. On the materials available, we come to the conclusion that award of an amount of Rs.25,000/- more as compensation would be just in the circumstances of the case. 4. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.25,000/- M.A.C.A. No.82 of 2003 4 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) in addition to the amount ordered by the Tribunal. Interest on the entire amount shall be payable as directed by the Tribunal from the date of the petition. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) rtr/-