The necessity of full repair cost compensation for vehicle damage under the Motor Vehicles Act was affirmed, emphasizing the use of new parts.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P(MV)No.1104 of 2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor is the appellant herein.

2. The appellant filed the above O.P(MV) under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , claiming compensation for the damage caused to her car in a motor vehicle accident. She has filed the Original Petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the damages caused to her car. However, the 3^rd respondent - insurance company reimbursed only a sum of Rs.1,12,786/-. According to the appellant she had spent an excess amount of Rs.57,000/- towards the cost of repairing charge, for which she preferred the claim petition. However, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.12,697/- leaving a balance amount of Rs.44,214/-.

3. According to the appellant, she is entitled to get the full amount spent by her for repairing the car. She has relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Joseph M.M. v. Venkata Rao M. and Others [ 2016 (1) KHC 756 ], in support of her argument. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment the court held that:

“One cannot expect a person to repair his vehicle with old spare parts. Therefore, necessarily, new spare parts will have to be purchased for making the vehicle roadworthy. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the utility of the vehicle might be increased on account of new spare parts being fitted into the vehicle, it is by way of restitution to enable the claimant to use the vehicle as he was using it before the accident. In other words, without effecting such repairs, it may not be possible for the claimant to put the vehicle on road. Therefore, making a further reduction to the actual value of spares will in effect amount to reduction from the actual loss suffered by him.”

4. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel for the

3^rd respondent – insurance company relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharmendra Goel v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd [ 2008 ACJ 2621 ] to substantiate her contention that the insurance company is not liable to pay the difference in the amount to the appellant. In the above decision, the vehicle involved in the accident was fully damaged and it was a case of total loss, in which the claim for value of new vehicle was rejected on the ground that at the time of the accident, the actual value of the vehicle was only Rs.1,80,000/-.

5. In the present case the facts are entirely different, as the appellant had spent a sum of Rs.57,000/- from her pocket in addition to the amount reimbursed by the insurer, to make it roadworthy. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Full Bench referred above, the appellant is entitled to get the difference in the amount spent by her from her pocket.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the 3^rd respondent/insurer is directed to pay a further sum of Rs.44,214/- to the appellant, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition, till deposit, with costs, within a period of two months from today.

On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner/appellant, without delay, as per rules.