JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. The appellants are aggrieved by decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and Presiding Officer, FTC Court No. 14, Vadodara on 25th January, 2007 in M.A.C.P. No. 757/1997. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26th November, 1996, when the petitioners were returning from Ahmedabad to Vadodara in a Car, bearing registration No. GJ-6-K-1129, the deceased Samir Shah was driving the Car at reasonable speed and with due care and caution, and on the correct side of the road. At around 6.30 a.m., when they reached near Chaklasi Chokdi, the respondent No. 1, all of a sudden, emerged from the compound of Hotel Trimurti, driving a tractor, being registration No. GJ-2-B-2441, in high speed and without lights. After coming on the road, instead of going to his left side, he drove his tractor towards his right side (wrong side) and dashed with the car, being registration No. GJ-6-K-1129, which was coming from Ahmedabad side and that is how, cause of action for filing aforesaid MACP is arisen. 3. The only issue which requires adjudication by this Court is quantum of compensation that ought have been awarded to the appellants, who were claimants before the Tribunal in a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 5. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim appearing on behalf of the appellants that judgment and award so far as awarding the amount of compensation towards damages caused to the motor vehicle i.e., Car having registration No. GJ-6-K-1129 is too less, illegal and without applying mind by the learned Tribunal Judge. It is further submitted that award passed by the learned Tribunal in connection with damage caused to the Car is prima facie based on presumption, and therefore, required to be enhanced by this Court. That, without considering the documents produced on the record and value of car, the learned Judge has committed an error by allowing claim of the petitioners towards loss of car only at Rs. 30,000/-, as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 6. It is further submitted that however, the petitioners have received an amount of Rs. 1,36,000/- from Insurance Company and the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- on lump sum basis. 30,000/-, as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 6. It is further submitted that however, the petitioners have received an amount of Rs. 1,36,000/- from Insurance Company and the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- on lump sum basis. That, the award passed by learned Tribunal is highly unjustifiable and against evidence on record. That, the award passed towards loss of Car is only for Rs. 30,000/-, as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- is erroneous and against documents produced on the record. That, the learned Tribunal has miserably failed in adopting higher figure to calculate depreciation in value of vehicle from the date of purchase and equating the said until the time of accident. The Tribunal ought to have awarded complete claim without reducing the compensation awarded by the Consumer Forum and by adopting reasonable percentage of depreciation. That, the interest awarded @ 9% till December, 2000 and @ 8% until realization is also not proper and legal, and therefore, it was requested by learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim appearing on behalf of the appellants to allow this appeal by enhancing award of compensation towards damages to the Car and interest @ 9% per annum. 7. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the appellants have received Rs. 1,36,000/- from his own Insurance Company by way of third party damages caused to the Car. That, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- awarded towards damages to the appellants by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous. That, the appellants have miserably failed to prove damages caused to the motor vehicle i.e. Car involved in the accident, as claimed in their petition, and therefore, no error is committed by the learned Tribunal in awarding compensation, or as damages caused to the Car as well as interest rate. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the respondent No. 3 to dismiss the appeal. 8. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 9. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal Judge, it appears that while passing an award in favour of the appellants, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the award of Rs. 9. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal Judge, it appears that while passing an award in favour of the appellants, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the award of Rs. 1,36,000/- awarded by the Insurance Company of the Motor Vehicle Car having registration No. GJ-6-K-1129 to the appellants. The learned Tribunal was of the opinion that depreciation of 20% considering the age of the Car as well as scrap of Car was returned back to the Insurance Company, it deemed to have awarded Rs. 30,000/- by way of damages caused to the motor vehicle i.e., Car registration No. GJ-6-K-1129. It is undisputed fact that appellants have received Rs. 1,36,000/- on account of damages caused to their vehicle from its own Insurance Company and learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/- in addition of the amount granted by the Insurance Company and that would come to Rs. 1,66,000/-. 10. MACP No. 757 of 1997 was preferred by the present appellants, from which this appeal arise. It was requested by the appellants to award compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. From the Examination-in-Chief of Mr. Rajnikant Dahyalal Shah (Ex. 43) before the Tribunal, it culls out that this Car was purchased in the year 1994 and its invoice is produced vide Exhibit 35 showing the price of car at Rs. 2,37,967/-. It is further stated that the insurance of the Car was taken and policy of this vehicle is produced vide Ex. 51. As per submission, this motor vehicle was completely lost and survey was made through Surveyor of the Insurance Company i.e., United India Insurance Company Limited. He had also filled up necessary forms and as per his admission, Rs. 1,36,000/- only was granted by the Insurance Company. As per his request, he should be awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- for the damages caused to the motor vehicle Car. As per the report of damages carried out by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company produced on the record, due to collision with a Tractor, the entire front portion of the insured vehicle got seriously and extensively damaged. The firewall of body shell got badly damaged. 2,50,000/- for the damages caused to the motor vehicle Car. As per the report of damages carried out by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company produced on the record, due to collision with a Tractor, the entire front portion of the insured vehicle got seriously and extensively damaged. The firewall of body shell got badly damaged. It appears from the record that the certain parts were not found fitted on insured vehicle at the time of survey made by the Surveyor and inspection listed at page No. 3 of the said report and total depreciated cost of missing/stolen parts was Rs. 13,356.89. It appears that additional expenses of Rs. 35,000/- towards labour and cost of parts by way of supplementary estimate was not considered, as it was not even necessary according to claim and it was suggested to settle on the basis of this assessment and without including any further operations. However, considering the depreciated cost of missing/stolen parts, a sum of Rs. 1,36,643/- was offered to the insured, in the event of consideration of subject claim on 'total loss' basis. From the policy of motor vehicle Car having registration No. GJ-6-K-1129 (Ex. 68), it appears that the total value of this motor vehicle is shown at Rs. 2,50,000/- and policy period is shown from 27th April, 1996 to 26th April, 1997, wherein the accident occurred on 26th November, 1996, which covers the period of policy. The Insurance Company has not denied the above said fact. Considering the total value of the motor vehicle at Rs. 2,50,000/-, if the amount of Rs. 1,36,000/- awarded towards damages caused to the vehicle by the Insurance Company and Rs. 30,000/- towards third party insurance awarded by the learned Tribunal are deducted and thereby, if the remaining amount of Rs. 84,000/- is granted to the petitioner in addition to the above said amount, then the purpose of filing this appeal would be served. 11. Hence, appellants are entitled to get additional sum of Rs. 84,000/-. Accordingly, the award passed by learned Tribunal is required to be modified by this Court to the aforesaid extent. So far as the interest awarded @ Rs. 11. Hence, appellants are entitled to get additional sum of Rs. 84,000/-. Accordingly, the award passed by learned Tribunal is required to be modified by this Court to the aforesaid extent. So far as the interest awarded @ Rs. 8% by the learned Tribunal is concerned, during the course of arguments, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties stated that same rate ie., 8% may be considered by this court and therefore, the question does not arise to enhance any interest rate. Hence, the same interest rate can be allowed and thereby, this appeal is partly allowed. Appellants shall be paid an amount of Rs. 84,000/- (Rupees Eighty Four Thousand only) within a period of six weeks of this order and to that extent, the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and Presiding Officer, FTC Court No. 14, Vadodara on 25th January, 2007 in M.A.C.P. No. 757/1997 stands modified.