IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 32 of 2011() ----------------------------- OPMV.1380/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) SRI.ALEXY AUGUSTINE SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT -------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PALARIVATTOM. 689 025. SRI C.K.KARUNAKARAN (S.C.K.S.E.B.) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ORDER ON I.A. NO.27/2011 IN MACA. NO.32/2011 DISMISSED 01/02/2011 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 32 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)1380/96. The Transformer belonging to K.S.E.B. was damaged when a stage carriage hit on the same and a petition was filed claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,11,600/-. After the first round of litigation there was a remand and after remand the Tribunal has fixed an amount of Rs.25,211/- and it is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant, insurance company would contend that the transformer even going by the evidence of PW3 was 23 years old and that it has been deposed before Court that the normal M.A.C.A. 32 OF 2011 -:2:- life is 30 years and if periodical service is done it is 40 years. Therefore the learned counsel would contend depreciation has to be calculated and thereafter the value obtained for the scrap has to be deducted and the balance compensation if any alone can be given. 2. On the other hand the young counsel for the K.S.E.B. would contend that the transformer was in a very good condition and it was only destroyed by the impact of the accident. There had been periodical maintenance and the sustainment of a proper transformer was imperative for maintaining the electrical supply system. Unfortunately no particulars are supplied to show the price of the transformer when it was purchased. The materials available is for the period 1995-96 wherein the Court found that the value of the transformer is M.A.C.A. 32 OF 2011 -:3:- Rs.78,211/- for a 160 K.V.A. The transformer that was destroyed or damaged was 150 K.V.A. It had also come out in evidence from PW3 that there was a scrap value of Rs.53,000/- that had been obtained by selling the transformer. The two methodologies that could be adopted is to find out the total value of the transformer at the time of purchase and then deduct the scrap value and give the balance compensation if any or if that is absent then to work out depreciation, fix the value, deduct the scrap value thereafter and award the compensation. The learned counsel for the insurance company would submit if the depreciation at the rate of 3% is calculated it will come to more than 60% and if the scrap value is also added to that then there will not be any compensation to be paid to the K.S.E.B. It has to be held that the M.A.C.A. 32 OF 2011 -:4:- insurance company is indemnifying the tortfeasor. By the act of tortfeasor the K.S.E.B. has lost the transformer which was functioning. Therefore the normal theory of calculating depreciation at a regular percentage year by year may not be correct for the reason that the upkeep of a transformer is an essential one for the supply of electrical energy. Therefore I feel in the absence of further materials and to put an end to the litigation it is desirable that only 15% is deducted from the value of Rs.78,211/- which when deducted would give a value of Rs.62,669/- out of this by sale of transformer the K.S.E.B. has obtained Rs.53,000/- which means that the balance compensation entitlement would be Rs.9,669/- which I will round as Rs.10,000/-. I feel this can be only a reasonable method of arriving at a M.A.C.A. 32 OF 2011 -:5:- figure though it may not be essentially precise. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the petitioner is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till realisation from the respondents 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. If any amount is already deposited that can be given credit to and if any excess amount is in deposit let it be reimbursed to the insurance company. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-