JUDGMENT K. Govindarajulu, J: Short point that is urged by the appellant m this appeal is in regard to disallowing a sum of Rs. 10.000/- by the learned member of the Tribunal. 2. The accident is not disputed. It is only the quantum of compensation awarded is disputed. According to the survey report, the damage is to the tune of Rs. 65,108.32. According to the invoices. it is Rs. 77,805/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of 10.000/-. 3. Learned advocate for the Insurance Company submits that Court should not encourage parties to move the Court in such small claims. 4. The Motor Vehicles Act creates a statutory duty on Insurance Company to insure, corollary of it is that the party who insures get a right. Further MV Act is considered as a social welfare legislation, so person who has lost should get reimbursed. So, Court should not encourage small claims is rejected. 5. Sri K. Suresh, learned Advocate for the Insurance Company further contend that the claimant cannot claim the old damages. This submission cannot be accepted as the surveyor has not certified damages as old damage and new damage. There is no such distinction when a vehicle is left for repair. In Sengupta's book on Motor Accident claims the following portion is found: "Reduction from the award on account of depreciation as the bus was two years old is not permissible because the question of depreciation would arise only when damages are awarded for the vehicle Written Off as a scrap or total loss and not where damages are to meet the actual expenses incurred for repairs and replacement" (M.S.R. T. Corp. Vs. N.R. Somashekar, 1982 (Supp) ACJ.39)". So the distinction substantiated by advocate is not sustainable. So, the claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of 10,000/- with interest at 6% pa. from the date of petition till deposit. The appeal is allowed.