A.M. Shaffique, J.

1. This case has been referred for consideration by a Full Bench, as per reference order dated 20th August, 2015 on account of an apparent conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court in T.A. Kuriakose v. Ittoop and others (M.A.C.A. No. 693/2004) decided on 4/6/2008 and Abraham v. Johny (M.A.C.A. No. 990/2005) [2009 (4) KLT 679] decided on 4/11/2008.

2. The appeal is filed by a claimant in a motor vehicle accident alleging that his vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-5/T-6379 sustained damages, in an accident which occurred on 23/8/2009. An assessment was made by a Surveyor, according to whom the damages were assessed at Rs. 5,62,511/-. However, he gave a report stating that after depreciation, the cost for repairs would come to Rs. 4,14,244.85 ps. Petitioner submitted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the MV Act) claiming the said amount. The Tribunal by its award dated 30/11/2012 having found that the petitioner is entitled for compensation for damage to his vehicle, reduced 35% from the amount fixed by the Surveyor as spare parts charges. The contention urged by the petitioner/appellant was that the Tribunal could not have deducted 35% from the value of spare parts as assessed by the Surveyor. The Division Bench while hearing the matter observed the apparent conflict between the aforesaid two judgments. Reference is also made to a judgment in Mathew K.V. v. Paul Varghese and others [2008 (4) KHC 114] (M.A.C.A. No. 1781/2006 decided on 22/7/2008) and a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M.R. Narahari Pandit v. Veenadevi Jalan, (1997 ACJ 245), wherein, it was held that a third party claimant is entitled for the actual cost of spare parts which was necessary to make the vehicle roadworthy.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Abraham Mathew and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Sri. V.P.K. Panicker.

4. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to quote the relevant portion of the judgments in T.A. Kuriakose v. Ittoop and others (M.A.C.A No. 693/2004) and Abraham v. Johny (M.A.C.A No. 990/2005) : [2009 (4) KLT 679].

5. In M.A.C.A. No. 693/2004 (supra), an identical issue had arisen where the claimant's scooter was damaged. He raised a third party claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. This Court held at para 3 as under:

"3. The Tribunal was considering the case of a third party claim. The appellant's scooter was damaged. He had to repair the same. He had purchased spare parts for the same. There is no point in deducting depreciation for spare parts or the actual labour charges spent by him. He had to make his vehicle road worthy and in the previous condition. Therefore, the entire amount of Rs. 13,736/- spent by him for purchasing the spare parts and the labour charges ought to have been granted by the Tribunal apart from Rs. 1,000/- as Surveyor fee. What was awarded by the Tribunal is only Rs. 9,643/-. The additional amount payable will be Rs. 5,093/-. We round the same as Rs. 5,000/-. The above amount of Rs. 5,000/- should be deposited by the third respondent - Insurance Corporation with 7% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, the appellant is allowed to withdraw the same.

The appeal is partly allowed."

6. In M.A.C.A No. 990/2005 (supra), a similar question had arisen, where the claimant sought for damages for his vehicle. The Tribunal fixed compensation after giving a depreciation of 40%. It was held by this Court at paragraphs 3 and 4 as under:

"3. Appellant's contessa car sustained major damage when another vehicle came and hit his car while it remained parked. In support of the claim for compensation for damage to the vehicle, appellant relied on the survey report and produced bills and receipts for repair and replacement. The claim was partly allowed by the Tribunal by granting Rs. 39,000/-.Then main grievance of the appellant is that even though th