Karnataka High Court
Sri C R Ramesh vs The Managing Director on 18 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46092
MFA No. 4851 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4851 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C.R. RAMESH,
S/O RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PRESS REPORTER,
R/O CHINAKURALI VILLAGE & HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
PIN - 572 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S LUNAR EXPORTS (P) LTD.,
Digitally signed 64/D.4, HOOTAGAHALLI
by VINUTHA B S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL AREA, BELAVADI POST,
KARNATAKA
MYSORE - 570 018.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
CBO III NO.42/1, CHANDRA COMPLEX,
KALIDASA ROAD, VV MOHALLA,
MYSORE CITY - 570 018.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDERS DATED 21.01.2015, NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46092
MFA No. 4851 of 2014
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6.9.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.180/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.B.S.Srinivas, learned counsel, who argued on
behalf of Sri.Sanjeev B.L., learned counsel on record for the
appellant. Also heard Sri.K.N.Srinivasa, learned counsel, who
is representing respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1
was dispensed with.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short
'MACT'), Pandavapura in MVC No.180/2009 dated 06.09.2013.
3. The appellant seeking damages of Rs.1,50,000/- in
total, filed an application before the MACT. The Tribunal
through the impugned order awarded damages of Rs.20,000/-.
Aggrieved by the sum awarded, the present appeal is filed by
the claimant.
NC: 2023:KHC:46092
4. The manner of happening of accident as per the
pleadings of the appellant is that on 21.12.2009 at about
1.00 p.m. his lorry bearing registration No.KA-18/8080 was
proceeding on road being driven by its driver. When it reached
near Bastipura village, one LGV vehicle bearing registration
No.KA 29/A-2186, which came from Mysuru side in a rash and
negligent manner dashed against his lorry, due to which the
lorry got damaged.
5. As per the version of the appellant, the surveyor
who surveyed the vehicle assessed loss to an extent of
Rs.54,220/-. It is also his version that he incurred a sum of
Rs.61,340/- for purchase of damaged parts, tinkering etc., and
further incurred a sum of Rs.17,950/- towards labour charges
etc. He also contended that he could not run his vehicle for
nine days and he was earning Rs.1,000/- per day through the
said lorry.
6. Making his submission with regard to the merits of
the matter, on this day, learned counsel for the appellant states
that the amount awarded as damages i.e., Rs.20,000/- is on
lower side. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
NC: 2023:KHC:46092
appellant incurred huge amount for getting the vehicle repaired
and further, he could not run his vehicle for a period of nine
days and thereby sustained loss of income. Learned counsel
for the appellant contends that the amount claimed as damages
i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- is justifiable and therefore, by allowing the
appeal, the same may be awarded.
7. Contrary submission is made by the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent
No.2 states that the appellant did not choose to examine the
alleged surveyor who surveyed the vehicle and assessed the
loss. Learned counsel further submits that genuineness of none
of the documents produced by the appellant was established
and therefore, taking into consideration the said fact, the
Tribunal has rightly awarded global damages of Rs.20,000/-
and thus, the award of the Tribunal needs no interference.
8. A perusal of record goes to show that the appellant
though produced Exs.P6 to P24 with regard to the loss
sustained by him, he could not establish the genuineness of
those documents. Admittedly, when the genuineness of the
documents which are produced as evidence is not established,
NC: 2023:KHC:46092
the Court cannot take the said documents into consideration for
any purpose. In the case on hand, no evidence thus is on
record which is convincing to show the extent of damages
caused and the loss sustained. However, having regard to the
manner of happening of accident which is borne by record, this
Court is of the view that the amount awarded as damages is on
lower side. It would be wholly justifiable, if the sum is
enhanced by Rs.20,000/-. Coming to the aspect of the loss of
livelihood, as per the version of the appellant, he was earning
of Rs.1,000/- per day by the use of his lorry and he could not
put the lorry to use for a period of nine days. In the absence of
any proof with regard to the actual earnings of the appellant by
the use of said vehicle, this Court intends to award a nominal
sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings. Thus, the ultimate
conclusion of this Court is that the amount awarded as
damages is required to be enhanced by Rs.25,000/-.
(i) Thus the appeal is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The compensation awarded by the MACT,
Pandavapura through orders in MVC No.180/2009 dated
06.09.2013 is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.45,000/-.
NC: 2023:KHC:46092
(iii) The enhanced amount shall carry the same interest
as awarded by the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CPN
CT: BHK
