IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 187 of 2003 ----------------------------------- OPMV.1612/1996 of II ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: NAZEER, S/O. ABDUL KARIM, KALLUMPURATHU KIZHAKKETHIL, MAZHANGODI, THODIYOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. P.PADMANABHAN, BEAUTY UMBERALLA MART, PAZHANGADU, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, S/O. NAGENDRAN, KALPANA, BOMBAY DYING SEETHA SANKARA TOWER, PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., TRIVANDRUM BRANCH. ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.187 of 2003 --------------------------------- JUDGMENT Balachandran, J. Appellant was the owner of the car bearing Reg. No.KRO 2802. While he was driving the same along the National Highway in the early morning on 12.8.1996, it met with a head on collision with a Tata Estate Car bearing Reg.No.KL-01/D 4658, which was coming from the opposite direction, overtaking a lorry in a rash and negligent manner. For the damage sustained to his car, the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. First respondent was the owner of the Tata Estate Car, second respondent was its driver and the third respondent was the insurer of the said car. Though the claim was resisted by the respondents, Tribunal found that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the car insured by the third respondent. The said finding is not under challenge. The claimant has preferred this appeal advancing claim for enhancement in compensation. Against the claim of Rs.1,25,000/-, Tribunal awarded only an amount of MACA 187/03 2 Rs.25,000/- by way of damages. 2. It is contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the accident, front portion of the appellant's car suffered extensive damage; that its chassis was bent; that its mud guard, wind screen, radiator, platform, etc. were damaged and the damage was assessed by a Surveyor under Exhibit A1 report; that it was a 1985 model Ambassador car; that under Exhibit A1 the Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.92,489; that the labour charges was assessed at Rs.23,000/-; that the value of the spare parts for replacement was estimated at Rs.71,449/-, allowing 50% depreciation in the value of spare parts and the loss assessed under Exhibit A1 is submitted to be Rs.56,725/-. All the same, PW2, while tendering evidence, admitted that the value of the car as on the date of accident would come to Rs.1,20,000/- and that depreciation of 50% is to be effected, the car being one of 1985 model, which is ten years earlier to the date of accident. PW3, a mechanic of the appellant, has given evidence that the spare parts were purchased with his assistance and that he has levied an amount of MACA 187/03 3 Rs.23,000/- towards repairing charges. But, in cross- examination, he admitted that he is only a mechanic in the workshop of one Vinod Kumar. Further, there was no evidence to show that the appellant paid Rs.23,000/- towards repairing charges of the vehicle. PW3 also admitted that the vehicle had been repaired earlier also in the same workshop and that the upholstery works and A/C work were then done by him. He admitted, however, that there is no document maintained in the workshop to evidence those aspects or even to show the details of the vehicles repaired in the said workshop. Much less is the evidence to show that he was a mechanic in the said workshop. The Tribunal did not accept the testimony of PW3. Exhibit A1 showed that value of spare parts required for effecting the repairs is Rs.71,449/-. However, there was no reliable document to prove that all those items were purchased for repairing the vehicle. Exhibit A4 serious bills also do not evidence that the purchases mentioned therein were made in connection with the repairs of the vehicle in dispute. It was considering all the above circumstances that the Tribunal found that damages caused to 1985 MACA 187/03 4 model Ambassador car can reasonably be estimated only at Rs.25,000/-. It is accordingly that the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- by way of damages with 6% interest per annum from the date of application till its deposit. We see no reason to interfere with the said award, as there is no material to show convincingly that the damage suffered to the car will cost more than Rs.25,000/-. The appeal, in the circumstances, is dismissed. (J.B.Koshy, Judge) 16th October, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv MACA 187/03 5 J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. -------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.187 of 2003 -------------------------- JUDGMENT 16th October, 2008