Karnataka High Court
Palakshappa B H vs Sanjay on 19 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15652
MFA No. 7216 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7216 OF 2013
(MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
PALAKSHAPPA.B.H
S/O LATE B.H.CHANDRAPPA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
R/AT # 366, 6TH CROSS,
7TH MAIN ROAD,
HAMPINAGAR, (R P C LAYOUT),
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.DHANANJAYA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SANJAY
S/O SHIVALINGAIAH,
MAJOR,
R/AT KEMPEGOWDANA DODDI,
Digitally signed by RAMANAGARA,
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 511.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.28/5, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:22.02.2018;
BY SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15652
MFA No. 7216 of 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.05.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.346/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BANGALORE CITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.A.Dhananjaya., learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri.B.Pradeep., learned counsel for respondent No.2 have
appeared in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on the Third day
of December 2011 at about 9:30 a.m., he was proceeding in
his car bearing No.KA-02-MD-9335 near Bapujinagar Bus stop,
Mysore raod, Bangalore, from west side to east. At that time, a
private bus bearing No.KA-43-1683 came from back side in a
rash and negligent manner and hit the back portion of the car.
Due to the impact, the right front door of the car was damaged.
NC: 2024:KHC:15652
The claimant filed a Claim Petition seeking compensation for
damage of the property.
In response to the notice, the first respondent did not
appear before the Tribunal and hence, he was placed ex-parte.
The second respondent Insurance Company appeared through
its counsel and filed written statement denying the petition
averments. Among other grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:08.05.2013 dismissed the Claim
Petition. The claimant has assailed the Judgment of the
Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the
Memorandum of appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have
urged several contentions.
Counsel Sri.A.Dhananjaya., submits that an application is
filed in I.A.No.4/2015 furnishing the copy of Cash Receipt to
contend that the claimant has paid a sum of Rs.27,685.30/-
(Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five and
NC: 2024:KHC:15652
Thirty Paise only) towards repair charges of the damaged
vehicle. Counsel therefore, submits that the application may be
allowed and appropriate order may be passed.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that
appropriate order may be passed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of respective
parties and perused the appeal papers, application and also
records with utmost care.
5. The following points would arise for consideration:
1. Whether the application in I.A.No.4/2015
requires to be allowed.
2. Whether the Judgment of the Tribunal requires
interference.
6. An application in I.A.No.4/2015 is filed under Order
41 Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional document i.e., a
true copy of a Cash Receipt for having paid a sum of
Rs.27,685.30/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred
Eighty Five and Thirty Paise only) towards repair charges of the
damaged vehicle.
NC: 2024:KHC:15652
Perused the application and also the affidavit with utmost
care. A perusal of the same would reveal that COBURG
Equipments Private Limited has issued a Cash receipt on
06.01.2012 stating that they have received a sum of Rs.
Rs.27,685.30/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred
Eighty Five and Thirty Paise only) from Palakshappa.B.H i.e.,
the claimant by cash towards Invoice #CBG/BLR/SER-020
dated 5th January 2012. It goes to show that the claimant has
paid the sum towards the repairs of the damaged vehicle.
Being satisfied with the cause shown in the affidavit filed
in support of the application, I.A.No.4/2015 is allowed.
It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on
03.12.2011 and the claimant's car was damaged in the
accident. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on
record and dismissed the Claim Petition solely on the ground
that the claimant has not furnished any document to show that
he has paid a sum of Rs.27,685.30/- (Rupees Twenty Seven
Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five and Thirty Paise only)
towards repair charges of the damaged vehicle. The claimant
has substantiated that he has paid the amount towards repair
NC: 2024:KHC:15652
charges of the damaged vehicle by furnishing a true copy of a
cash receipt. This Court has allowed the application. Therefore,
this Court deems it appropriate to award compensation of
Rs.27,685.30/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred
Eighty Five and Thirty Paise only) towards damaged property.
7. For the reasons stated above, the Judgment
dated:08.05.2013 passed by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-6) in
M.V.C.No.346/2012 is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is
set-aside.
The Claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.27,685.30/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred
Eighty Five and Thirty Paise only) towards repair charges of the
damaged vehicle. The second respondent Insurance company is
directed to pay the compensation amount within two months
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Judgment.
Since the claimant has not furnished the cash receipt
before the Tribunal, hence he is not entitled for the interest.
NC: 2024:KHC:15652
8. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
