Karnataka High Court
Manjunath S/O Late Parameshwara Swamy vs Aswini Kumar Muvva on 15 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3706
MFA No. 101355 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101355 OF 2016 (MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O. LATE PARAMESHWARA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OWNER OF THE AUTO BEARING
REGN.NO.KA-34/9982,
R/O: BYRAPURA VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY MISS. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ASWINI KUMAR MUVVA
S/O. RAGHUVEER RAO,
AGE: MAJOR,
DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING
NO.KA-34/T-4587,
Digitally
signed by R/O: 610, PRAGATHI NAGAR,
SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB H.NO.52, QUTHUBULLAPUR, RANGA
AYUB DESHNUR
Date:
REDDY DISTRICT, ANDHRA PARADESH,
DESHNUR
2024.02.23
16:32:50
NOW R/O: SINDHIGERI VILLAGE,
+0530 BALLARI TALUK.
2. KADEMANI PENNAPPA S/O. SUNKAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING,
NO.KA-34/-4587,
R/O: SINDHIGERI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BALLARI,
BEARING POLICY NO.241182/31/11/01/00000488,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3706
MFA No. 101355 of 2016
VALID FROM 2.12.2011 TO 1.12.2012.
4. MALAGI MARUTHI S/O. ANJINAPPA M.
AGE: MAJOR,
DRIVER OF THE GOODS,
TRAX BEARING REGN NO.KA-17/B-5393,
R/O: BAPUJI NAGAR, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
5. ZABIULLA S/O RABBANI SAB,
AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE GOODS,
TRAX BEARING REGN NO.KA-17/B-5393,
R./O: KUNDUR POST, HONNALLI TQ,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
6. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
201-208, CRYSTAL PLAZA,
OPP: INIFINITE MALL, LINK ROAD,
ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI BEARING,
POLICY COVER NOTE NO.0001098894
VALID FROM 30.5.2012 TO 29.5.2013.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARUNA R.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. AYYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
R2 - R4 SERVED;
R1, R5 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.14/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3706
MFA No. 101355 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Heard Miss.Soubhagya Vakkund for Sri.Y.Lakshmi
Kant Reddy, Smt.Aruna R.Deshpane and Sri.Ayyappa for
Sri.Subhas J.Baddi, counsels.
2. Claimants appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation in respect of vehicle damage in a road
traffic accident that occurred on 22.09.2012 at about 9
a.m. involving Auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-34/9982 and
Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-34/T-4587, a claim was
registered in MVC No.14/2013.
3. On contest, tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
as compensation for the vehicle damage.
4. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation, claimant is in appeal.
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in appeal
memorandum, Miss.Soubhagya sought for enhanced
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3706
6. Per contra Smt.Aruna Deshpane and Sri.Ayyappa for
Sri.Subhas J.Baddi supported he impugned judgment.
7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
court has perused the material on record meticulously.
8. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no
proof of what is actual damage and what is the amount
that has been estimated for repair of the damaged vehicle
and payment thereof.
9. Taking note of the oral and documentary evidence of
the claimant Manjunath, owner and also cash bills for
repairing the auto, tribunal has allowed a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-.
10. Mere marking cash bills would not prove what is the
exact damage in the absence of any certificate or report or
assessment of damages.
11. Further, the author of cash bills are not examined; so
also driver has not been examined. What was the actual
damage that has occurred to the auto rickshaw is also not
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3706
forthcoming on record with cogent and convincing
evidence on record.
12. As such, hardly there is any scope for enhancement
of compensation.
13. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is merit less and is hereby dismissed.
ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
