Karnataka High Court
K. Subrahmanya Hegde S/O Subba ... vs Irappa Maddiyavar S/O ... on 20 July, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 22575 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22575 OF 2010 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
K. SUBRAHMANYA HEGDE S/O SUBBA HEGDE
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O PRABATH NAGAR TAL. HONNAVAR,
DIST. KARWAR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARAYAN V YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. IRAPPA MADDIYAVAR S/O MALLIKARJUN
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O COURT ROAD,
POST. KALGHATGI, TAL. KALGHATGI DIST. DHARWAD
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CTS NO.
472/474, KALBURGI SQUARE DESAI CIRCLE,
DESHPANDE NAGAR HUBLI DIST. DHARWAD
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T ...RESPONDENTS
R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R2) (R1-SERVED)
DHARWAD
Date: 2022.07.21
10:42:36 +0530
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MV
ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.04.2010 PASSED BY ADDL. MACT, HONNAVAR IN MVC
NO.162/2008 AND TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED
FOR BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER
OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
-2-
MFA No. 22575 of 2010
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition
seeking compensation for the damage caused to the
vehicle Maruti Omni bearing registration No.KA-47/M-125,
under judgment and award dated 19.04.2010 in MVC
No.162/2008 by learned Member, Addl. MACT, Honnavar
(for short, 'MACT'), this appeal has been filed by the
owner of the vehicle.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.06.2008,
offending Truck bearing registration No.KA-25/B-3682 was
being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
and in high speed near Gungunkeri, and on account of the
same, it dashed to one Scooter from behind and
thereafter, dashed to Maruti Omni vehicle of the claimant
causing extensive damages to the same.
3. The claim petition was resisted by the
Insurance Company which filed its statement of objections
and owner of the offending lorry remained exparte.
MFA No. 22575 of 2010
4. During trial, the claimant examined himself as
PW1 and he examined one Surveyor as PW3 and Exs.P1 to
P194 were marked. The respondents did not examine any
witness nor marked any document.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides
and perusing the records, the learned MACT dismissed the
claim petition.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
submitted before me that the learned MACT was in error in
dismissing the claim petition merely on account of the fact
that no acceptable evidence was produced before it to
prove the actual damages caused to the vehicle Maruti
Omni in question. He submitted that the photographs
were produced at Exs.P5 to P11 and also Ex.P29-Spot
Panchanama. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned
award of the learned MACT is required to be set-aside and
compensation is required to be awarded to the claimant.
MFA No. 22575 of 2010
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance
Company, per contra, contended that after appreciating
the entire evidence on record, the learned MACT had
dismissed the claim petition and there is no error in such
judgment and therefore, appeal is required to be
dismissed.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both sides and I have perused the
records carefully.
9. It is no doubt true that the claimant has not
produced IMV report to show that the damage was caused
to the vehicle Maruti Omni in question. Even Ex.P1-Survey
report was not prepared by PW3 for assessing loss caused
to the vehicle in the presence of the representatives of the
Insurance Company after notice to them. However, it was
not proper on the part of the learned MACT to have
dismissed the claim petition completely. A perusal of the
charge sheet supports the case of the claimant that the
MFA No. 22575 of 2010
offending Truck had hit Maruti Omni vehicle in question
and some damages had been caused to the said vehicle.
Photographs at Ex.P5 to P11 also demonstrate the same.
It is therefore inevitable that the claimant would have
incurred certain expenses for repairing the said Omni
Vehicle. After having appreciated the photographs at
Ex.P5 to P11 and also Ex.P29-Spot Panchanama, I am of
the view that the claimant would have spent at least a
sum of Rs.20,000/- during the year 2008 to restore the
said Maruti Omni Vehicle to its original condition. This
assessment of damages has been made by taking a
reasonable view of the matter and also keeping in view the
actual damages caused to the said vehicle. Accordingly,
the appellant/claimant shall be entitled to a sum of
Rs.20,000/- towards damages caused to Maruti Omni
vehicle in question. The said compensation shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till date of payment. The respondent/Insurance
Company shall deposit the said compensation amount
MFA No. 22575 of 2010
along with interest before the learned MACT within six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment. Transmit the records to the learned MACT
forthwith.
10. The appeal is partly allowed to the above
extent.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
