Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Sri Prabhakar H S on 20 September, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:34115
MFA No. 7219 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7219 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROYAL SUNDARAM
ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD)
NO.133, 3RD FLOOR, SHIKA TOWERS
RAMAVILAS ROAD, MYSORE-570 024
REP BY REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.30, 3RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTRE
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027
BY ITS STATE HEAD LEGAL
MR.S.K.SANDEEP
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AND:
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY
Location: High 1. SRI PRABHAKAR H S
Court of
Karnataka S/O SHESHACHALA H.S.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT HANEYAMBALLI VILLAGE
NAGARALE POST
NANJANAGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.
2. SRI.KRISHNAMURTHY
MAJOR IN AGE
NO.1475, 24TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE
BTM LAYOUT, BENGALORE-560 078. ...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:34115
MFA No. 7219 of 2018
(BY SRI.M.Y. SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 20.09.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.06.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.189/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AND MACT, NANJANGUD, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,21,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short) has been filed by the Insurance Company being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.06.2018 passed by
the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and Motor Accident
Compensation Tribunal, Nanjangud (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.189/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 26.02.2013 at about 7.45 a.m.,
the driver was driving the car bearing registration No.KA-
09/B-5913 towards Gundlupete from Mysuru along with
NC: 2023:KHC:34115
MFA No. 7219 of 2018
one passenger. When the vehicle reached near Kalale
Dodda Channel Bridge on Nanjangud-Gundlupete main
road, at that time, the driver of another car bearing
registration No.KA-05/MD-3858 being driven by its driver
at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the
aforesaid accident, the vehicle was completely damaged.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166
of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that in
the accident, front wind screen is broken, front head lamps
and indicators, front bumper and radiator, front body
shape, front both wheels, steering system and cooling
system are damaged and he spent huge amount towards
repair of the car. It was further pleaded that the accident
occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and
2 appeared through counsel and filed separate written
statements in which the averments made in the petition
NC: 2023:KHC:34115
MFA No. 7219 of 2018
were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false
and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that
the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of
the vehicle by its driver. The driver of the car was not
holding valid driving licence as on the date of the accident.
The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the
policy. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and
the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded
that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant
is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the
petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded
the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW1
and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On
behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as
RW1 and got exhibited document as Ex.R1. The Claims
Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that
the accident took place on account of rash and negligent
NC: 2023:KHC:34115
MFA No. 7219 of 2018
driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of
which, the vehicle was damaged. The Tribunal further
held that the claimant is entitled to a global compensation
of Rs.1,21,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. and
directed the Insurance Company to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest. Being
aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
has contended that even though the claimant has
produced Exs. P8 to P10 to show that he has spent
Rs.2,10,999/- for repair of the vehicle, to prove the same,
he has not examined the author of the document. The
Tribunal has erred in awarding the damages of
Rs.1,21,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. Hence,
sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
claimant has contended that he has produced Exs. P8 to
P10 to show that he has spent Rs.2,10,999/- towards
repair of the vehicle. On the basis of the said document,
NC: 2023:KHC:34115
MFA No. 7219 of 2018
the Insurance Company has paid Rs.1,55,196/- and the
Tribunal has awarded compensation towards vehicle
damages. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the judgment and award.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant is the
owner of the car bearing registration No.KA-09/B-5913
and the car met with an accident and suffered damages
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle on 26.02.2013. The claimant claims that
he has spent Rs.2,10,999/- towards repair charges. To
prove the same, he has produced Exs. P8 to P10. But he
has not examined the author of the said documents.
Considering the evidence of the claimant and considering
the documents produced, I am of the opinion that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,51,000/-
has to be reduced to Rs.75,000/-.
10. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2023:KHC:34115
MFA No. 7219 of 2018
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is modified.
(iii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
at Rs.1,21,000/- is reduced to Rs.75,000/-.
(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the compensation amount along with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of
the claim petition till the date of realization,
within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
(v) The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CM
