1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED :09.02.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

C.M.A(MD)No.63 of 2015

and

MP(MD)No.1 of 2015

The Manager,

National Insurance Company Limited,

74-A, Paramathi Road,

Namakkal. : Appellant/2^nd Respondent

Vs.

1.Shanmugam : R1/Petitioner

2.Anantkumar

3.The Manager,

IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Limited,

Thulasi Chambers, 3^rd Floor,

T.V Samy Road, R.S Puram,

Coimbatore. : R2 and R3/R1 and R3

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section

173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated 29.06.2012 made

in MCOP No.28 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur.

For Appellant

: Mr.R.Srinivasan

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar

For 2^nd Respondent

: Dismissed, vide order,

Dated 14.12.2017

For 3rd Respondent : Mr.G.Maruthaiya

JUDGMENT

Challenge made in this appeal is to the award passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur,

in MCOP No.28 of 2010, dated 29.06.2012.

2.The short facts of the case is that on 10.07.2009 at about

11.45 am, when the Tipper Lorry TN-41-R-3133 belongs to the claimant

proceeding near Kaliyappanoor Kaliyammal Rice Mill at Karur to

Gujiliamparai road, at that time, the Tanker Lorry TN-27-B-1699

came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and

hit against the Tipper Lorry. Due to the impact, the Tipper Lorry

of the petitioner was heavily damaged. The claimant, filed a claim

petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- on the ground that

the driver of the offending vehicle is respondent for the accident.

3.The claimant has stated that the accident occurred only due

to the rash and negligent driving of the Tanker Lorry and hence, he

is entitled to compensation for the damages incurred to the Tipper

Lorry.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

4.The claim was opposed by the appellant Insurance Company/2nd

Respondent disputing the manner of accident and their liability to

pay compensation.

5.The Tribunal, upon consideration of oral and documentary

evidence, came to the conclusion that the driver of the Tanker Lorry

was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation

Rs.1,65,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Challenging the award of the

tribunal, the Insurance Company/2^nd respondent is before this court

as appellant.

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

7.Even though several grounds were raised in the grounds of

appeal, it is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant Insurance Company that the quantum arrived at in

awarding the compensation is not based on any scientific approach,

as the tribunal has not even taken into account the depreciated

value of the vehicle. In support of his contention, the learned

counsel relied upon the decision reported in 2007(2) TN MAC 432 (The

Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, (Tamil Nadu

Division -1) Ltd., Chennai Vs. G.Kathamuthu and another).

8.In this appeal, the point for consideration is as to whether

the quantum of compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle

should be arrived at after taking into account the depreciated value

of the vehicle.

9.In this case, the tribunal awarded the compensation to the

tune of Rs.1,65,000/-. Be that as it may, the grievance of the

appellant Insurance Company is that the depreciation of the vehicle

was not at all taken into consideration and according to them, 10%

depreciation should have been taken for assessing the damages.

10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance

Company would convincingly argue that once a motor vehicle is used

on the road, its value automatically gets depreciated; and on