Kerala High Court
Lukose vs Ajayan on 1 September, 2008
Author: M.N.Krishnan
Bench: M.N.Krishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 646 of 2007()
1. LUKOSE, S/O. KURIAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AJAYAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN,
... Respondent
2. RAJAN, S/O. KUMARAN,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.KOSHY
For Respondent :SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :01/09/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 646 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 1stday of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV) 1221/03. The said petition is filed for damages sustained to the Maruti Car in a road accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.23,000/- but limited the liability of Insurance Company to Rs.6,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that Rs.15,525/- had been expended for labour charge and Rs.24,257/- for purchase of spare parts. This is on the basis of an estimate prepared by a surveyor. The approach of the Tribunals in granting compensation merely on the basis of some survey reports cannot be said to be correct. There must have been some amount spent for the repair of the vehicle and it should be proved. If it has become only a scrap value, that has to be proved. But it is made clear now by a decision of the Division Bench of this court and earlier decision of the Karnatake High Court in M.R.Narahari Pandit v. Veenadevi Jalan [1997 ACJ 245] that there cannot be any depreciation for the purchase of spare parts for the reason that spare parts are MACA No. 646/07 2 purchased for the purpose of putting the vehicle into a road plying condition. The same view has been taken by a division bench of this court in MACA No. 693/2004. Therefore, that matter requires reconsideration. It is contended by learned counsel that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability of the Insurance Company at Rs.6,000/-. It all depends upon the terms and conditions of the policy. That aspect can also be looked into by Tribunal when the matter is reconsidered.
Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and matter is remitted back to Tribunal with a direction to the appellant to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of his contention regarding actual repair of the vehicle. He is also permitted to raise the contention regarding the limitedness of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is also permitted to contest the case by raising the contention which it wants.
Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 21.10.2008.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 646/07 3