Allowed

Manoj Issac v. Roby

Kerala HC2 Sept 2014MACA/445/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the appellant's appeal against the MACT's award. It held that bills from the authorized dealer repairing the scooter were credible without a survey report. After applying 25% depreciation to spare parts costs, an additional compensation of ₹13,717 with interest was granted.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of ₹13,717 with interest at 7.5% per annum granted to be paid by the insurer within two months.

Manoj Issac Vs Roby — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/11TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

MACA.No. 445 of 2012 ()

¶6

-----------------------OPMV 1634/2005 of ADDL.D.C.-II & MACT, MAVELIKKARA

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

MANOJ ISSAC, VELIYIL HOUSE, VETTICODE, KATTANAM. BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.KOSHY SMT.ANNIE MATHEW (KAYAMKULAM) SMT.V.V.RISANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3:

¶10

ROBY REJI BHAVAN, KARIMULACKAL, CHUNAKARA.P.O. 690 534.

¶11

ANANDAN CHANDU BHAVAN, ERUMAKKUZHY, NOORANADU.P.O.690 504.

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. KAYAMKULAM.P.O.690502.

¶13

BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶16

................................................................ M.A.C.A. No. 445 of 2012

¶17

............................................................... Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2014

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Aggrieved by the award dated 06.09.2011, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara in O.P.(MV) No.1634/2005, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

¶20

On 28.11.1999, the scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-4C-

¶21

3208 belongs to the petitioner met with an accident when it was hit by an auto rickshaw. Extensive damage were caused to the scooter whereby the appellant had to spent an amount of ₹17,348.76/- by way of spare parts costs and repair charges. The Tribunal has not cared to consider Ext.A11 series of bills submitted by the appellant to grant compensation on the ground that no survey report was produced. The Tribunal has chosen to grant an amount of ₹2,000/- only towards compensation on account of the damage caused to the scooter.

¶22

M.A.C.A. No. 445 of 2012

¶23

-:2:-

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.T.K. Koshy and learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent Sri.John Joseph Vettikkad. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the scooter was less than three years old and it had sustained severe damage in the accident. The scooter was repaired by the LML Vespa dealers themselves, at the Central Motors, Kayamkulam and there is nothing to disbelieve the contents of Ext.A11 series of bills issued by the dealers of LML Vespa in this case.

¶25

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent contended that the appellant ought to have produced survey report for obtaining the claim and also contended that there should be depreciation in the cost of spare parts as the scooter was around three years old as on the date of accident.

¶26

Ext.A11 series of bills are issued by Central Motors, Kayamkulam who are the dealers of LML Vespa. As the dealers themselves had repaired the vehicle, there is nothing to disbelieve the contents of Ext.A11 series of bills. It is true that

¶27

M.A.C.A. No. 445 of 2012

¶28

-:3:-

¶29

there should be depreciation of 25% in the cost of spare parts in this case. Out of the total amount of ₹17,348/-, an amount of ₹2,825/- comes towards labour charges and the balance amount of ₹14,523/- is cost of spare parts. After depreciation, the cost of spare parts will come to ₹10,892/-. The appellant is entitled to get such an amount of ₹10,892/- as cost of spare parts along with the other amount of ₹2,825/- towards labour charges as compensation. Therefore, the impugned award requires modification to that effect.

¶30

In the result, this MACA is allowed and an additional compensation of ₹13,717/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation is granted as additional compensation to the appellant, over and above the amount granted by the Tribunal. The 3^rd respondent being the insurer shall pay the said amount within two months from today.

¶31

Sd/B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE P.S. to Judge

¶32

ul/- [True copy]

Manoj Issac v. Roby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Issac v. Roby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peruvaniyan Janaki Amma Vs Peruvaniyan Narayana Kurup

K. Jose Vs Basheer

Davis Vs T.Venugopal & Others

General Engineers Vs Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.v.Arabian Sea

Chembolaparambu General Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Owners and Parties Interesed in He Vessel

K.G.Raveendran Pillai Vs M.O.Devassy