Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri S Vishnumurthy Mayya on 12 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1760
MFA No. 8002 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 8002 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VISHNUPRAKASH
BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, COURT ROAD
UDUPI, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALI COMPLEX
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANKARA REDDY C., ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI S VISHNUMURTHY MAYYA
S/O KRISHNA MAYYA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OPPOSITE TO KULAL BHAVAN
THADMABAILU SURATHKAL
MANGALORE DISTRICT-575 014
Digitally signed by 2. SRI SADANANDA CHATHRA
MALA K N S/O GOVINDA CHATHRA
Location: HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OF KARNATAKA PROPRIETOR M/S DURGAMBA MOTORS
HANGLUR KUNDAPURA
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY R1 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED;
R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.07.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.8.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.456/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1760
MFA No. 8002 of 2016
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT,
UDUPI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.70,078/-.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the Insurance Company has
challenged the judgment dated 10.08.2016 in
M.V.C.No.456/2007 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Udupi ('the Tribunal' for
short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 12.05.2006 at
11.15 a.m. on Udupi-Kundapura road near
Kumbragodu, Mabukala Bridge, the petitioner met with
an accident involving the Tama Sumo bearing No.KA-
16/MA-929 and bus bearing No.KA-20/A-5782
damaging the said vehicle. The petitioner after getting
the vehicle repaired seeking recovery of damages
approached the Tribunal seeking compensation of
NC: 2024:KHC:1760
Rs.1,28,200/-. Claim was opposed by the
respondents. The Tribunal after taking the evidence
awarded a sum of Rs.70,078/-. Pleading excess, the
Insurance Company has filed this appeal on various
grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri.C.Shankara
Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
Respondents though served remained unrepresented.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that the petitioner has made own
damages claim against his insurer, who paid
Rs.48,000/-, there is a depreciation of Rs.29,922/-.
The petitioner without giving deduction to these
aspects has claimed compensation of Rs.1,28,200/-
towards damages. The nature of damages effected by
the petitioner indicates that the damages are
unconnected to the accident in question and old wear
and tear has got repaired and these aspects were not
taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It is further
contended that the Tribunal has erroneously relied
NC: 2024:KHC:1760
upon the evidence of the Surveyor. The evidence of
the Surveyor did point out that he was not aware what
are all the damages that were caused to the vehicle at
the time of accident, the order of the Tribunal is
erroneous and sought for interference.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of the Insurance
Company and also perused the materials on record.
7. There is no dispute as to the accident, cause of
the accident and the damage caused to the vehicle.
The vehicle has been repaired by the authorized Tata
Garage at Udupi under Ex.P5/repair bill for a sum of
Rs.1,38,913/-. As per the Surveyor's report,
depreciation is assessed at Rs.29,922/-. The own
damage claim of Rs.48,000/- was paid by the insurer
of the petitioner. If these things are excluded, the
actual amount that the petitioner is entitled to is
Rs.60,990/-, whereas the Tribunal has awarded at
Rs.70,078/-. When the evidence speaks of these
things, the Tribunal ignoring these aspects awarded
NC: 2024:KHC:1760
compensation, which is erroneous and calls for
interference. Hence, the appeal merits consideration.
In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned judgment and award is
modified.
iii) The petitioner is entitled to
compensation of Rs.60,990/- instead of
Rs.70,078/- assessed by the Tribunal;
iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal is kept
in tact;
v) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM
CT:HS
