Sri R.V. Shekar vs The Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 12472 Kant

                           1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                        BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              M.F.A.NO.8168 OF 2014 (MV-I)

BETWEEN

SRI R.V. SHEKAR
S/O SRI.R.V.VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VIDYANAGARA, 2ND CROSS,
RAMANAGARA TOWN,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI: S. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE-THROUGH PH)

AND

1.    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
      BMTC, K.H.ROAD,
      SARIGE BHAVAN,
      BANGALORE-560 027.

2.    THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
      NO.40, LAKSHMI COMPLEX,
      K.R.ROAD,
      BANGALORE-2.
                                          RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI. M.S. SRIRAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                  2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.10.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.470/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM   PETITION    FOR   COMPENSATION    AND   SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

    THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 23.10.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.470/2011 on the

file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagar, ('the Tribunal'

for short).

2. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

the Tribunal is that on 14.07.2011 at about 5.10 p.m., the son of

the petitioner was driving a car near Kempegowda Arch, Ring

Road. At that time, BMTC bus came from behind in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the car. As a result of

which, the car was damaged. In order to substantiate the claim,

the petitioner has been examined as PW-1 and marked the

documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10. On the other hand, Assistant

Manager of Insurance Company - respondent No.2 has got

himself examined as RW-1 and also marked the documents as

Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. The Tribunal while considering both oral and

documentary evidence and while considering Issue No.2, taken

note of the fact that the Insurance Company has paid the

amount of Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner and took the car to their

custody and as per Ex.P9, repair estimation charges was made

to the tune of Rs.2,67,116/-. The Tribunal has also taken note

of the policy which was issued by respondent No.2 that for third

party property damage, the Insurance Company is liable to pay

only Rs.6,000/- and also taken note of the admission made by

PW-1. In para 18 of the Judgment, the Tribunal has taken note

of the fact that as per evidence of RW-1, the petitioner has

already received Rs.89,500/- and as per the policy-Ex.R-2, the

amount to be paid for damages for third party property is only

Rs.6,000/-.

4. The fact that the vehicle was surrendered as against

Rs.89,500/- is not in dispute. No doubt, the estimation was

made to the tune of Rs.2,67,116/- but no repair was made and

also to show that the vehicle was worth of Rs.2,67,116/-, no

evidence is produced before the Court by the claimant. In the

cross-examination, the petitioner has also categorically admitted

that the vehicle is second hand and before surrendering the

vehicle also, the claimant did not got valued the vehicle and

accepted the amount fixed by the Insurance Company.

5. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to

enhance the compensation.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Prs*