Kerala High Court
P.V.Joy vs Beevi Salim on 4 September, 2008
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair, V.K.Mohanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 141 of 2003()
1. P.V.JOY, S/O.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BEEVI SALIM, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. MR.SAID, PALLATHUKUDY HOUSE,
3. THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.KOSHY
For Respondent :SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :04/09/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
-------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 141 & 161 of 2003
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 4th day of September, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned standing counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.
2. The claim filed before the MACT was for compensation for the damages caused to the shop rooms in the building owned by the appellants along with other relatives. We have called for the records from the MACT and verified the documents produced in support of the claim for damages. It is conceded that the lorry had rammed into the shop rooms causing damage to it. In fact, shop owners were awarded compensation besides granting compensation to the injured lorry cleaner. The claim filed by the appellants is rejected for want of proof of title to the building. We are unable to uphold the order of the Tribunal because there is no rival claim and appellants had produced title deed which is in the nature of partition deed.
3. So far as the compensation amount is concerned, in MACA Nos.141 & 161/2003 -2- the normal course we should remand the matter to the MACT. However, on going through the photographs we are convinced that the damage caused to the building is essentially on the rolling shelters and on the adjoining brick construction. The three storied building is constructed on concrete columns and there is no structural damage seen to it. Even though the appellants have produced a certificate from the contractor stating that structural repairs have been carried out to the building, we are not convinced that without demolition columns could be substituted or strengthened through additions. Moreover, photographs produced show that the columns remain intact. However, rolling shelters are seen completely damaged and some peripheral structural work is also required for repair of the building. The building is admittedly repaired and reconditioned for re-use. Having regard to the evidence available and since the matter took place years back and for the sake of finality, we allow the appeals by granting a consolidated compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to each of the appellants with a direction to the Insurance Company to make payment on production of copy of MACA Nos.141 & 161/2003 -3- the judgment through account payee cheques within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. If the appellants agree for receipt of cheque in the name of one of them, the Insurance company should issue cheque to such person instead of giving separate cheques to each of them.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) jg