Karnataka High Court
Manjunath Basappa Kadapatti vs Shivakumar M P S/O M Parameshwarappa on 8 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2978
MFA No. 101239 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101239 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH BASAPPA KADAPATTI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.18, TADAKOD ONI,
NEAR RAJESHWARI, PRINTING PRESS,
KAMANAKATTI ROAD,
DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANKIT DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVAKUMAR M.P.
S/O. M. PARAMESHWARAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: C.V. STREET NAYAKANATTI,
TQ: CHALLAKERE, DIST: CHITRADURGA.
Digitally 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
signed by
SAROJA NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
SAROJA HANGARAKI SAVITRI SADAN, P.B. ROAD,
HANGARAKI Date:
2024.02.19 OPP. TO KITTLE COLLEGE, DHARWAD.
16:04:58
+0530 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.224/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SEC.166 OF THE MOTOR AVHICLES ACT.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2978
MFA No. 101239 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Ankit Desai on behalf of Sri.M.B.Hiremath,
for the appellant and Sri.M.Y.Katagi for respondent -
Insurance Company.
2. Unsuccessful claimant has preferred the present
appeal challenging the validity of judgment and award
passed in MVC No.224/2009 dated 25.01.2016 on the file
of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of this case are as under:
3.1 KMF Dharwad, milk union had hired a Bolero
goods vehicle bearing No.KA-25/B-9976 belonging to
claimant on payment of hire charges of Rs.1,500/- per day
for transportation of milk from KMF Dharwad to Haveri.
The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.04.2009 and
there was damage caused to the vehicle and also milk
boxes worth Rs.42,833/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2978
3.2 In this regard, there was already payment
made by the Insurance Company. Despite the same, the
claim petition came to be filed.
3.3 Insurance Company appeared before the
Tribunal and filed detailed written statement.
3.4 Tribunal raised necessary issues. After
considering the material evidence placed on record,
Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident stands
proved and held that insofar as damages are concerned,
the owner of the vehicle has already received
compensation from Cholamandalam General Insurance
Company and therefore dismissed claim petition.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, claimant
is in appeal.
5. Sri.Ankit Desai representing Sri.M.B.Hiremath
reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum,
contended that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2978
the material evidence on record and sought for allowing
the appeal.
6. Per contra, Sri.M.Y.Katagi, learned counsel for
the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment
and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
8. On such perusal of material on record, the
Tribunal while discussing the liability of Insurance
Company in respect of vehicle damages, in paragraph
No.18 of the impugned judgment has held as under:
"18. As noticed above, PW.1 has admitted in his
cross-examination about the receive of damages amount
to his vehicle from the Insurance Company. The petitioner
in the petition has not whispered how much amount
received from his Insurance Company. During the course
of cross-examination PW.1 stated that his Insurance
Company has paid Rs.20,000/- towards the damages to
his vehicle. But the petitioner has not produced any
document in that regard. Further, the petitioner has not
produced the bill to show that he has spent more money
to the repair of his vehicle than the amount received from
his Insurance Company. If the petitioner produced the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2978
particulars regarding the amount received from his
Insurance Company, the assessment of surveyor made
towards the damages and the bill actually incurred
towards the repair of his vehicle then this tribunal could
know the fact that the petitioner has spent more money
towards repair of his vehicle than the amount received
from his Insurance Company. In the absence of such
particulars and documentary proof this tribunal is not in a
position to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has
spent more money towards repair charges of his vehicle
than the amount received from his Insurance Company.
Therefore, the decisions cited by the petitioner will not
come to his aid. On the other hand the decision cited by
the respondent No.2 is applicable to the case on hand.
The oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the
petitioner goes to show that the petitioner has already
received the compensation amount from his Insurance
Company towards the damages caused to his vehicle.
Further he failed to establish the fact that he has incurred
more money towards repair of his vehicle than the
amount received from his Insurance Company. Since the
petitioner has already received the vehicle damages
amount from his insurer, he cannot claim compensation
once again from the respondents. Therefore the petitioner
is not entitle for any compensation. Hence I answer issue
No.4 in the negative and in the result, I proceed to pass
the following :
ORDER
The Petition filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act by the petitioner is dismissed with costs.
Draw Award accordingly."
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2978
9. This Court having revisited into factual aspects
of the matter, does not find any legal infirmity or
perversity in recording such a finding in paragraph No.18
referred to supra by the Tribunal.
10. As such, no case is made out by the appellant
to interfere with the impugned order.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
