Karnataka High Court
Smt Parvathi vs Mr.Kulur Iqbal Sheikh on 12 October, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.1258/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PARVATHI
W/O. SRIDHAR KULAL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT VISHWANATHA
POOJARY COMPOUND,
KRISHNA NAGARA
KUNJATHBAIL, BONDEL
MANGALURU TALUK-575 015,
DAKSHINA KANNADA. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR.KULUR IQBAL SHEIKH
S/O. ABDUL KHADER
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.2-80/1
ZENETH MANZIL,
PADUKODI VILLAGE, KULUR
MANGALURU TALUK-575 013
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BHARATH MOTORS PVT. LTD.,
MANGALURU, D.K.-575001
BY ITS MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS
(R1 IS SERVED;
SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.1079/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 29.11.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.1079/2010 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru ('the
Tribunal' for short).
3. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
4. The appellant/claimant is the owner of the vehicle
and she had made the claim for damages. It is the contention of
the claimant that the estimated cost of spare parts is
Rs.89,347/- and the cost of the labour charges for repair was
Rs.39,600/-. Apart from that, spare parts purchased as per
Exs.P8 to P10 is to the tune of Rs.20,829/- and total value of
spare parts and repair is Rs.60,429/-. The appellant would also
contend that Rs.42,000/- was paid by her insurer and the vehicle
was also idle for a period of 45 days and the same is evident
from the records, particularly, Ex.P7. Hence, she is entitled for
the difference amount as well as the vehicle idling charges.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
would submit that though the estimation was made to the tune
of Rs.89,347/-, the amount spent for repair as well as the spare
parts is only Rs.60,429/- and taking note of the damages, there
is no need of keeping the vehicle idle for 44 days.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, admittedly, the bill
was issued for Rs.39,600/- and spare parts of the vehicle as per
Exs.P8 to P10 is Rs.20,829/-. Having considered the damages
and the cost of spare parts which is only Rs.20,829/-, the vehicle
was idle in the garage for a period of 45 days cannot be
considered, considering the damages and the repair charges.
However, this Court can take note of the difference to the tune
of Rs.18,000/- taking note of the amount of Rs.42,000/- given
by the Company and the amount of Rs.60,429/- spent towards
repair and spare parts. Though the appellant claim Rs.1,000/-
per day since, the vehicle was idle for a period of 45 days, the
same cannot be considered. Hence, it is appropriate to award a
sum of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled to an
amount of Rs.33,429/- and the same is rounded off to
Rs.35,000/-.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 29.11.2012 passed in
M.V.C.No.1079/2010 is modified granting
additional compensation of Rs.35,000/- as
against Rs.42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
with interest at 6% per annum from the date
of petition till deposit.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
