Abbas vs Reliance General Insurance

T.R. Ravi, J

A lorry bearing registration No.KL-25/B-217 driven by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal in a rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed hit against the residential building of the appellant causing substantial damages to the building. The appellant has preferred a claim before the Tribunal seeking compensation of ₹4,50,000/-. The compensation was claimed under the heads damages to the building, damaged to the home appliances, Surveyor's fee and compensation for expenses incurred for renting out a residence till completing the reconstruction. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹2,82,446/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Aggrieved by the amount awarded, the appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Heard Sri.George Sebastian, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.K.B.Ramanand, learned counsel for the respondent.

The contentions of the appellant are two fold.  Firstly it is contended that the Tribunal went wrong in deducting 15% of the amount assessed by the Surveyor as damages towards depreciation. Secondly, it is contended that the Tribunal did not grant any amount for renting out a residence during the time the building is reconstructed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Joseph v. Venkata Rao reported in (2016 (1) KLT 802) in support of the contention that once the claim that the claimant has suffered loss is found to be genuine, there is no reason why a further depreciation should be ordered by the Tribunal. Ext.A12 is the report of the Surveyor, which shows that the residential building belonging to the appellant had suffered damages to the tune of ₹3,18,172/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹2,70,446/- . Going by the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in Joseph supra, the Tribunal ought not to have deducted any amount towards depreciation. So also, the Tribunal has not even considered the contentions of the appellant that he is entitled to compensation towards the cost involved in a rented accommodation for the period when the building was reconstructed. I find that the amount of ₹60,000/- claimed under that head is very reasonable, having regard to the nature of the damages caused to the building as seen from Ext.A12 report. The appellant is entitled to succeed in this appeal.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The appellant is entitled to an amount of ₹1,07,726/- (Rupees One Lakh Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Six only) (₹47,726/- + ₹60,000/-) as additional compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 05.07.2012, till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. The appeal was filed with a delay of 70 days. The delay was condoned by order dated 06.09.2021 on condition that the appellant will not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation which may be awarded by this Court for the period of 70 days. The interest payable on the enhanced compensation shall be hence excluding the period of 70 days. The respondent shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with the interest and proportionate costs, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting any amount to which the appellant is liable towards balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of the compensation to the appellants shall be in accordance with law.