C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) FIRST respondent who is the owner of the Maruti Van bearing no. AP 03-6399 filed a claim petition against respondents who are the owner and insurer of the bus bearing No. TN-01 N-0055, alleging that the driver of the said bus, due to his rash and negligent driving, dashed the bus against his van from behind resulting in extensive damage thereto, and so he had to spent Rs. 65,000. 00 for repairs thereto besides incurring an expenditure of Rs. 25,000. 00 towards travelling expenses etc. , and underwent mental agony, and so he is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000. 00 from the respondents as compensation. Second respondent chose to remain ex parte both before the Tribunal and in this Court. Appellant filed its counter contesting the claim. In support of his case, first respondent examined himself as P. W. I and marked exs. Al to A7. Appellant did not adduce any oral evidence, but marked Ex. Bl by consent. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, awarded Rs. 57,270. 00 as compensation to the first respondent against the second respondent and the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the insurer of the bus.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for first respondent questioned the maintainability of the appeal by the insurer because no permission under Section 170 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) was obtained by it to take the defences open to the owner. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant did not obtain permission under section 170 of the Act, since the evidence of the first respondent as P. W. I shows that, he received Rs. 29,000. 00 from the United india Assurance Company Limited, with which the van damaged in the accident was insured, and failed to disclose the said fact in the claim petition, appellant can seek reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by Rs. 29,000. 00 which the respondent had received from his insurer, as he is not entitled to double payment for repairs to "his damaged van. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the question whether respondent received compensation from his insurer or not is irrelevant for deciding the liability of the owner of the offending vehicle and his insurer, that too when the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and so there are no grounds to interfere with the award of the Tribunal.

( 3 ) ON the basis that Ex. A2 and ex. A3 produced by the respondent show that he purchased spare parts worth rs. 42,269-20 ps. from ABT work shop, madras, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 42,270. 00 towards purchase of spare parts, Rs. 10,000. 00 towards travelling, boarding and lodging expenses, for the respondent going to and staying at Madras on 10 occasions in connection with repair to his van at madras, and Rs. 5,000. 00 for the inconvenience suffered by the respondent during the period of repairs to his van involved in the accident.

( 4 ) THE age of the vehicle or property involved in the accident is one of the important factors to be kept in view for awarding damages for the repairs affected to a vehicle or to the property damaged in the accident, because, due to wear and tear, the value of a vehicle or property gets depreciated over a period of time. The value of the parts in an old vehicle would be far less than the value of a new part. Respondent is entitled to the value of the parts that were damaged in the accident but not the value of a new part which was replaced in place of the old parts which were damaged. So the Courts while awarding damages to the owner of a vehicle damaged in an accident would usually deduct l/3rd value from the value of the new parts to cover depreciation and award 2/3rd amount spent for purchase of the new parts as damages. That was not done in this case.

( 5 ) RS. 10,000/- awarded to the respondent, towards the amount spent by him for making

Click Here to Read the rest of this document