The Manager vs V P Sakrapani
2022 Latest Caselaw 81 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                  M.F.A. No.100082/2014(MV)
BETWEEN

THE MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
E-8, EPIP, RIICO, SITAPUR, JAIPUR,
RAJASTAN-302022.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
                                                   ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     SRI. V.P. SAKARAPANI,
       AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
       R/O BEHIND ANUPAM HOTEL,
       KPNWAL GALLI, BELGAUM,
       TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM.

2.     SRI. RAFIQUE YAKUBSAB GADWALE,
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
       R/O YALLAPUR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD, HUBLI,
       TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(R2 DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED: 29.07.2013, PASSED IN MVC No. 2942/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF ` 2,97,500/- WITH INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 7% P.A. FROM DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
REALIZATION.
                                   2




     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGMENT

The Insurer of the truck bearing registration No.KA-25/C-

0149 has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award

dated 29.07.2013, passed in MVC No. 2942/2011 by the VI

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Tribunal', for brevity).

2. The brief facts of the case that would be relevant for

the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:

The claimant is owner of the vehicle bearing Registration

No.KA-22/N-4396. On 27.12.2010, the driver of the claimant

along with his friends was proceeding in the vehicle from

Belgaum towards Goa and when the vehicle reached near Akroli

cross after crossing Ramanagar, the offending truck bearing

Registration No.KA-25/C-0149, being driven by its driver in a

rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant's

vehicle and in the said accident, the claimant's vehicle was

completely damaged and the said vehicle was thereafterwards

shifted to Noor Mestri Garage, Maruthi Nagar, Sambra Road,

Belgaum for repair. The quotation for the sum of `11,56,608/-

for repair was given by the said Garage owner. Since the

claimant was not in position to spend such a huge amount for

repairing of the vehicle, the vehicle was not got repaired by him

and he thereafterwards filed a claim petition before the MACT

under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a total

compensation of `11,56,608/- towards damages caused to his

vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-22/N-4396 (Chevrolet Tavera

SVV). The Insurer had appeared before the Tribunal in the said

claim petition and filed detailed objections. The Tribunal vide the

impugned judgment and award, allowed the claim petition in

part and granted damages of `2,97,500/- to the claimant with

interest at 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till the

date of realization of the entire amount. Being aggrieved by

the same, the insurer is before this Court in this Miscellaneous

First Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

claimant had earlier filed a claim before the Insurer of his

vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/N-4396 and the said claim

was repudiated by the claimant's Insurer on the ground that the

vehicle was used in violation of the policy conditions. He submits

that the compensation awarded is also on the higher side and

the Tribunal without properly appreciating the evidence available

on record has awarded the compensation which needs to be

reduced.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-

respondent submits that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and proper. He submits that, merely for the

reasons that the Insurer of the claimant has repudiated his

claim, there is no bar for the claimant to claim damages from

the owner of the offending lorry, when admittedly the offending

lorry had dashed against the claimant's car and caused

damages. He submits that there is a criminal case registered

against the driver of the offending lorry, which prima facie

shows that the driver of the offending lorry had caused the

accident in question.

5. I have carefully considered the rival arguments and

also perused the material on record.

6. The undisputed facts of this case are, on

27.12.2010, the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/N-4396

which belongs to the claimant had met with an accident, when

the truck bearing registration No.KA-25/C-0149 had dashed

against the vehicle of the claimant and resulted in complete

damage of the claimant's vehicle. The material on record would

go to show that the Garage, to which the vehicle was initially

taken, had given an estimation for sum of `11,56,608/- towards

repair of the vehicle belonging to the claimant. The photograph

of the vehicle of the claimant is available on record. A perusal

of the same would go to show that the vehicle was completely

damaged in the front side and the evidence on record would go

to show that, for the purpose of repairing the vehicle, the

claimant was required to spend a huge amount, which virtually

is more than the value of the vehicle. The vehicle of the

claimant was insured and in the said Insurance Policy, the

vehicle was valued at `3,73,500/- and the said Insurance

Policy, was valid from 17.09.2010 to 16.09.2011.

7. PW.2 - Surveyor has deposed that the wreck of the

vehicle may fetch an approximate value of `70,000/- to

`90,000/-. The Tribunal considering the same has taken the

salvage value of the wreck at `80,000/- and after deducting said

amount of `80,000/- from the value of vehicle, has arrived at a

conclusion and the net liability of the Insurer on salvage basis

would come to `2,92,500/-. It is on this basis the Tribunal has

arrived at a conclusion that the claimant is entitled for the

loss/damage caused to his vehicle at `2,92,500/-. Further, since

the claimant had incurred expenses of `5,000/- for the purpose

of toeing his vehicle to the Garage, the Tribunal has also

awarded the said amount in addition to `2,92,500/-. Therefore

the total compensation of `2,97,500/- has been awarded by the

Tribunal towards loss of damages to the vehicle belonging to the

claimant.

8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

claimant, since the offending lorry, which was insured with the

appellant - Insurance Company had caused the accident, which

resulted in the claimant's vehicle being completely damaged,

there was no bar on the claimant to maintain a claim petition

before the Tribunal as against the Insurer of offending vehicle

even if the claim made by him, with him insurer was repudiated

on the ground that the vehicle was used by the claimant's driver

in violation of the policy condition.

9. Having regard to the evidence available on record

and taking into consideration that the garage in which the

vehicle was parked has issued a quotation for a sum of

`11,56,608/- to repairs of the vehicle, I am of the considered

view that the judgment and order passed by the tribunal

awarding compensation of `2,97,500/- on the basis of the value

of the vehicle as per the insurance policy of the said vehicle is

not on the higher side. The tribunal has awarded interest at the

rate of 7% per annum and even the same does not call for

interference. On an overall appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence available on record, I am of the view that

the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal does

not suffer from any illegality which calls for interference at the

hands of this Court. Under the circumstances, I decline to

entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

Amount in deposit before this Court is ordered to be

transferred to the tribunal for the purpose of disbursement.

In view of disposal of appeal, I.A No.1/2014 will not

survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AC