Karnataka High Court
Annapurna D/O Ramanabai Chavan vs Suresh S/O Mallappa Bhairodagi ... on 24 January, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
MFA No.31493/2013 (MV)
Between:
ANNAPURNA D/O RAMANABAI CHAVAN
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
(OWNER OF AUTO KA-28/A-5209)
R/O HADAGALI L.T.No.1
TQ. BIJAPUR, DIST. BIJAPUR-586103.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH S/O MALLAPPA BHAIRODAGI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC TRANSPORT BUSINESS
R/O: NO.500 S.R.COLONY (NORTH),
BAGALKOT ROAD, BEHIND BUDH VIHAR,
BIJAPUR-586101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
S.S.FRONT ROAD, BIDARI COMPLEX,
BIJAPUR-586101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS, TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
01.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.2165/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.II BIJAPUR AT
BIJAPUR AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY RS.1,31,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED
BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS COURT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 06.01.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Not being satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant-
claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of
Motor Vehicles Act.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
refereed to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. Claimant is the owner of Auto rickshaw
bearing registration No.KA-28/A-5209. It is alleged
that on 09.05.2010, at about 1.45 p.m. while auto
rickshaw belonging to him was parked by the side of
the road near Hadagali Bus stand on NH-218, leading
from Sindagi to Bijapur, a Truck bearing registration
No.KA-28/A-5321 (herein after referred to as
'offending vehicle'), driven by its driver in a rash or
negligent manner, came in a high speed and when the
driver of the lorry lost control over the vehicle, it
dashed against the auto rickshaw and other vehicles
and also caused injury to several persons. In the said
accident, the auto rickshaw belonging to the claimant
sustained damage and accordingly she sought
compensation of Rs.2,20,000/.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and
respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle
and they are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation.
5. Respondent No.1 admitted that he is the
owner of offending vehicle, but contended that on the
date of accident, it was covered by a valid insurance
issued by respondent No.2 and the driver was holding
valid licence and in the event of granting
compensation, respondent No.2 may be directed to
pay same.
6. Respondent No.2 has admitted that the
offending vehicle was covered by a valid policy issued
by it, but denied its involvement in the alleged
accident. The compensation claimed is on the higher
side.
7. During the enquiry, claimant has examined
himself as PW.5 and has relied upon Ex.P30 to 35.
The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of
Rs.89,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
8. The claimant has challenged the impugned
judgment and award contending that having regard to
the extensive damage sustained by the auto rickshaw
in question, the compensation granted is very meager
and in the light of the assessment at Ex.P31, job
estimation at Ex.P33 and repair cost at Ex.P34, he is
entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-.
9. During the course of arguments, the
learned counsel for the claimant submitted, though in
the Lok Adalath the parties agrees to settle the
matter, but no consensus could be arrived at with
regard to the exact amount. He prays to allow the
appeal awarding global compensation by enhancing
the compensation by a reasonable amount.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel
representing respondent No.2 supported the
impugned judgment and award and has sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
11. It is pertinent to note that the loss assessor
has assessed the marked value of the auto rickshaw in
question as Rs.80,000/-. The Tribunal has decided to
grant the compensation based on the market value.
The learned Presiding Officer has deducted solatium at
Rs.5,000/-. He has added the surveyors fees in a sum
of Rs.4,000/- and loss of income as Rs.10,000/-.
Thus, in all the Tribunal has granted compensation in
a sum of Rs.89,000/-.
12. Admittedly, with this sum of Rs.89,000/-,
the claimant can neither get his damaged auto
rickshaw repaired nor purchase a new auto rickshaw.
Therefore, in addition to the compensation already
granted, the claimant is entitled for an additional sum
towards loss and inconvenience suffered by him on
account of the damages caused to the vehicle, as a
result of which his livelihood suffered. Considering all
these aspects, I am of the considered opinion that it
would be reasonable to enhance the compensation by
a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Of course the claimant is
entitled for interest for the enhanced amount.
13. In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed in part.
(b) The appellant/claimant is entitled for
additional sum of Rs.35,000/- with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realization from respondent
No.2 - insurance company.
(c) The entire enhanced amount is ordered to
be released in favour of appellant/claimant.
The Registry is directed to send back the trial
Court records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
msr
