IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 649 of 2004() --------------------------------- OPMV.55/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- GEORGE VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, PALLIMATTOM HOUSE (JERUSELEM HOUSE) MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KIZHAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, KORATTY SOUTH. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY ` SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN OP (MV): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.J. VAKKACHAN, KOLENCHERY HOUSE, MANIKAMANGALAM, KALADY. 2. N.V. JOY, S/O. VARGHESE, NEDUNGANDAN HOUSE, ANGAMALY KIZHAKKE ANGADI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. NATINOAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALUVA BRACH. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 649 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)55/97. The grievance of the claimant is mainly on the point that towards the value of the spare parts the Tribunal has deducted 50% and only awarded the remaining compensation. The learned counsel for both sides submitted before me that a Division Bench of this Court in MACA 693/04 has taken the view that so far as it relates to the value of the spare parts substituted in a vehicle which got involved in the accident no deduction has to be made. Therefore, so far this case is concerned the same dictum has to be followed. 2. I may refer to the two decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the insurance company in the decision reported in Union of India v. Ratan Lal (1988 ACJ 992) where a Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has taken M.A.C.A. 649 of 2004 -:2:- the view that 1/3 has to be deducted when new spare parts are used for replacing the old parts. In another decision Somabhai Ruvabhai Gamit v. Ayyubbhai M. Sheikh (1987 ACJ 666) the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that there can be deduction when new spare parts are substituted. So far as this Court is concerned at it is admitted by the parties that the Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that no deduction need to be made. Therefore I follow the said dictum and revise the award passed by the Tribunal by enhancing the compensation by Rs.8,350/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.8,350/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-