Karnataka High Court
Sri Dr. B. Appaji vs The Divisional Controller on 4 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:559
MFA No. 1950 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1950 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI DR. B. APPAJI
S/O LATE S. BORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
C/O. DR.PRADEEP, 12TH CROSS,
LEELAVATHI EXTENSION,
WATER TANK ROAD,
GORAVANAHALLI ROAD,
MADDUR TOWN, MADDUR,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571401
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MARI GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
OWNER CUM CHIEF
Digitally signed
CUSTODIAN OF II FUND,
by BHARATHI K.S.R.T.C, BUS NO.KA-40/F-564,
S
Location: HIGH
K.H. DOUBLE ROAD,
COURT OF SHANTHINAGAR,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560027
2. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
1ST FLOOR, V.V. ROAD,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUMANGALA A SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:559
MFA No. 1950 of 2014
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.313/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT,
MADDUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the Claimant being dis-
satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur1, vide judgment
and award dated 6.2.2013 passed in MVC.No.313/2012.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration
of the present appeal are that the claimant along with his
family members were traveling in a Maruthi Car bearing
No.KA-11/M9945 from Bengaluru towards Mandya, at
which time a bus belonging to the first respondent -
KSRTC came from the bus stand to the highway without
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:559
giving any signal and hit against the car of the claimant,
as a result of which, the claimant suffered injuries and the
car was damaged. Claiming compensation for the injuries
sustained as well for damages to the car, the claimant filed
MVC No.313/2012 arraying the KSRTC as first respondent
and the insurer of the car as the second respondent.
4. The said claim proceedings were contested by
the respondents. The claimant adduced his evidence as
PW.1 and another witness as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P8 were
marked in evidence. The evidence of the driver of the first
respondent was adduced as RW.1. However, no
documents were marked in evidence. The Tribunal vide
judgment and award dated 6.2.2013 allowed the claim
petition in part and ordered the first respondent to pay a
compensation of `10,000/- together with interest at 6%
pa., from the date of petition till realization. Being
aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the above appeal
seeking enhancement of the compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:559
5. In the present appeal, the appellant has
challenged the finding of the Tribunal rejecting the claim
made towards loss of damages caused to the car. Along
with appeal, I.A.1/2015 has been filed to produce
additional evidence. Enhancement of compensation
awarded towards injuries is also sought.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1
justifies the award made by the Tribunal and seeks for
dismissal of the above appeal.
7. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal while
considering the claim of the claimant regarding the vehicle
damage has recorded a finding that the claimant has not
produced the relevant documents to prove that he is the
owner of the car. In the absence of the same, the claim
made towards the vehicle damage has been rejected. With
regard to the injuries sustained, the Tribunal has noticed
that the injuries sustained are 3 simple injuries and
awarded a global compensation of `10,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:559
8. Along with the above appeal, the claimant has
filed IA.1/2015 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 to permit him to produce the 'B'
Register extract to show that he is the owner of the car.
No objections have been filed by the respondents to
IA.No.1/2015.
9. The contentions have been considered and the
material on record including the records of the Tribunal
have been perused. The questions that arises for
consideration are:
1) Whether IA.1/2015 is required to be allowed?
2) Whether the compensation is required to be
enhanced?
10. Having regard to the fact that the 'B' Register
extract of the vehicle in question has been produced and
the same relates to the present case and the said
document is relevant for deciding the questions that arise
for consideration in the present appeal, it is just and
proper that the said application be allowed and the
NC: 2024:KHC:559
documents produced along with the same be taken on
record for adjudicating upon the present appeal.
Accordingly, IA.1/2015 is allowed and the documents are
taken on record. Accordingly question No.1 is answered in
the affirmative.
11. It is forthcoming from the 'B' Register extract
produced by the claimant that he is the owner of the car
bearing No.KA-11/M 9945. Hence, it is clear that he being
the owner of the car he is entitled to claim compensation
for the damages caused to the car.
12. With regard to the quantum of compensation to
be awarded towards damage to the car, it is forthcoming
from the evidence of PW.2 who is a mechanic that he has
taken one month to repair the car. The claimant has also
produced the bills for having incurred the necessary
expenses towards the repair of the car. It is forthcoming
from the bills at Ex.P7 that a sum of `19,490/- has been
incurred towards the replacement of parts and a further
sum of `15,400/- has been incurred towards labour
NC: 2024:KHC:559
charges. The claimant has also produced and marked the
photographs of the car in question to demonstrate the
damages that have been caused. However, the aspect
regarding depreciation is also required to be kept in mind
before any compensation is awarded towards the damages
caused to the car.
13. It is also relevant to note that the claimant has
not claimed insurance from the insurer of the car for the
damages caused to the vehicle and there has not been any
assessment of damages by any qualified valuer/loss
assessor. In view of the same, the quantum is required to
be assessed keeping in mind the aforementioned factors.
14. Under normal circumstances, having regard to
the fact that IA.1/2015 has been allowed and the
assessment of quantum towards vehicle damage has not
been made, the matter is required to be remanded to the
Tribunal for consideration regarding the same. However,
having regard to the fact that the date of accident is
31.10.2011 and the appeal before this Court is pending
NC: 2024:KHC:559
since nearly 10 years, the assessment of compensation
towards vehicle damage is done in the present appeal
itself.
15. Having regard to the fact that some amount is
required to be deducted towards depreciation and as on
the date of the accident the car was 12 years old, it is just
and proper that towards vehicle damage, a lumpsum
amount of `7,000/- be awarded.
16. With regard to the injuries suffered, the
claimant having suffered simple injuries and the said
aspect having been considered by the Tribunal and a
global compensation of `10,000/- having been granted,
interference with the same is not warranted.
17. Hence question No.2 is also answered in the
affirmative.
18. In view of the aforementioned, the following
order is passed:
NC: 2024:KHC:559
ORDER
i) I.A.1/2015 is allowed and the documents are
taken on record and considered while
adjudicating the above appeal on merits.
ii) The appeal is allowed in part;
iii) The judgment and award dated 6.2.2013
passed in MVC No.313/2012 by the Senior Civil
Judge and MACT, Maddur, is hereby modified to
the extent of awarding a further sum of
`7,000/- together with interest at 6% pa., from
the date of petition till realization. In all other
respects, the judgment and award dated
6.202013 passed by the Tribunal remains
unaltered;
iv) The Respondent No.2 - insurer is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation amount
along with interest accrued before the Tribunal
thereon within six weeks of the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:559
v) Upon such deposit, the same shall be disbursed
to the Claimant.
vi) Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ND
