Karnataka High Court
Sri Rame Gowda vs Sri G Balashankar on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36539
MFA No. 9530 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9530 OF 2012(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAME GOWDA,
S/O HANUMANTHE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O DODDAMANDIGANAHALLI,
KANDALI POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.P. SATHISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. G. BALASHANKAR,
S/O. R.G. GOPALA SWAMY,
Digitally
signed by JAI MAJOR,
JYOTHI J
Location:
NO. 1342,
HIGH HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA TANKILA, PUTTUR,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
(OWNER OF THE LPG TANKER LORRY BEARING
REGISTER NO. KA-21-A-7466)
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, SELAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER/OFFICER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36539
MFA No. 9530 of 2012
CHANDANA COMPLEX,
HARSHNA MAHAL ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. E.I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED:07.07.2015)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1868/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT II, HASSAN. PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by the
award passed in MVC No.1868/2008, dated 18.01.2012, where
the MACT had granted an amount of Rs.6,000/- against the
claimed compensation of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.
2. The case of the claimant is that on 19.08.2008 at
about 3.00 p.m while the claimant was proceeding in his Maruthi
Omni car from Hassan side to Palya to go the farm on the NH-48
road while the car was proceeding, a Tanker lorry came from
Mangalore side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
NC: 2023:KHC:36539
MFA No. 9530 of 2012
against the claimant's Maruthi car, as a result of it, right side
doors, door glasses and front glass are damaged and car is
completely damaged. The claimant had spent an amount of
Rs.65,000/- towards repair charges and he was using the said
car for his business purposes everyday and he sustained loss of
Rs.1,00,000/-. Altogether he had claimed compensation an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.
3. It is the case of the Insurance Company that, no
such premium is paid covering the risk of third party properties
and they are only liable to pay the compensation an amount of
Rs.6,000/-. The Court below had held that the accident had
taken place because of the negligence on the part the vehicle
insured and damages caused to the vehicle of the claimant as
per the IMV report. But as the policy was not marked by the
claimant and it is the case of the Insurance Company that, they
only liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/-. The Court below had
considered their case and granted an amount of Rs.6,000/-.
4. There is no representation on behalf of learned
counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company submits that, it is the specific stand that they can not
NC: 2023:KHC:36539
MFA No. 9530 of 2012
pay more than Rs.6,000/- as they have not collected any extra
premium for the damage to the third party property and the
Tribunal had rightly granted an amount of Rs.6,000/-.
5. This Court has perused the entire material on record.
It is the case of the Insurance Company that as per the policy
they are only liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- and no such
policy was marked. The Court below observed that, claimant had
not marked the policy and considering the case of the Insurance
Company granted an amount of Rs.6,000/-. In the considered
opinion of this Court, such finding of the Tribunal is without any
basis and without any evidence. Hence, this Court deems it
appropriate to set aside the award and remand the matter back
to the Trial Court. The respondent-Insurance Company shall
produce the copy of the insurance policy. Both the parties are at
liberty to adduce further evidence, examine and cross examine
the witness.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
i) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal
without any further notice the parties shall
appear before the Tribunal on 30.10.2023 and
NC: 2023:KHC:36539
MFA No. 9530 of 2012
the MACT shall decide this appeal within a
period of two months from 30.10.2023.
iv) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the court below forth with and the same shall
be kept in the fixed deposit.
v) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court
forthwith without any delay.
vi) No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
KBM
CT:SNN
