Karnataka High Court
Shivakumar B vs M/S Hdfc Ergo General Ins. Co,Ltd on 19 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15655
MFA No. 4574 of 2014
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. 4574 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SHIVAKUMAR.B
S/O SRI. S.BASAVARAJ,
AGED 35 YEARS,
R/AT 4, 2ND BLOCK, 3RD CROSS,
PEENYA I STAGE, BANGALORE-560 058.
AND ALSO R/AT MUNIYAPPA BUILDING,
NO.22, 2ND BLOCK, 3RD CROSS,
PEENYA I STAGE,
BANGALORE -560 058.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.V.SHYAMAPRASADA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.14, 1ST FLOOR, H.M.GENEVA HOUSE,
Digitally signed by NEXT TO FORTIS HOSPITAL,
THEJASKUMAR N CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560 052.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
2. MANJUNATHA M.V.
MAJOR,
S/O MUNISIDDACHARI,
NO.23, 18TH CROSS, C J F QUARTERS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BWSSB, BANGALORE-560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:21.01.2015)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15655
MFA No. 4574 of 2014
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.01.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.4760/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER PRINCIPAL MACT,
AT BANGALORE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.K.V.Shyamaprasada., learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.H.S.Lingaraj., learned counsel for respondent
No.1 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. The brief facts are these:
On the twenty-eighth day of July 2012 at about 12:45
pm., the claimant Shivakumar.B was driving his TATA Indica
Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AC-1517 on Bengaluru
Bellary road. It is said that he stopped his car near Chikkajala
junction. At that time, a driver of a Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-04-MG-8061 came in a rash and
NC: 2024:KHC:15655
negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and hit the
hind portion of TATA Indica Car. As a result of which, the TATA
Indica Car was severely damaged. The claimant filed a claim
petition seeking compensation for property damage.
In response to the notice, the respondents appeared
through their counsel and filed statement of objections denying
the petition averments. Among other grounds, they prayed for
dismissal of the Claim Petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:07.01.2014 partly allowed 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.
Sri.K.V.Shyamaprasada., learned counsel for the claimant
in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the
damaged vehicle was in the garage for almost 2 months 22
days. He argued by saying that the claimant was earning
NC: 2024:KHC:15655
Rs.22,000/- per month, since the vehicle was in the garage, he
suffered loss of income. Counsel submits that the Tribunal
awarded one month's income, however it has not considered
the loss of income for the remaining period. Counsel therefore,
submits that appropriate order may be passed.
Sri.H.S.Lingaraj., learned counsel for the Insurance
Company justified the Judgment of the Tribunal and submits
that appropriate order may be passed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records
with utmost care.
5. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Suffice it to note that the claimant's vehicle was
damaged on account of the accident. It is noticed that the
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.22,000/- towards
loss of income during the time when the vehicle was garaged
for repairs. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was in the
garage for a period of 2 months 22 days. The Claimant was
NC: 2024:KHC:15655
earning Rs.22,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.22,000/- only i.e., one month's loss of income. The
Tribunal has not awarded compensation for the remaining
period. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) towards loss of
income for the remaining period.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) along with 6%
interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of the certified copy of this Judgment.
7. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
Office is directed to transmit the original records to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
