Karnataka High Court
Gundaiah vs The Manager on 5 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1018
MFA No. 11753 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 11753 OF 2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
GUNDAIAH,
S/O MARIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O ANDURU GRAMA, MADAGHATTA POST,
BIKKODU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.GIRISH.B.BALADARE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
T A P C M S COMPLEX,
P B NO.68, K.M ROAD,
Digitally CHIKKAMAGALUR - 572231.
signed by
BHARATHI S
Location: 2. UMAR,
HIGH COURT S/O ANWAR PASHA,
OF
KARNATAKA R/O 2ND CROSS, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BELURU,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.
3. S.P.MALLESHA,
S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
R/O DUBAI VILLAGE, AREHALLI HOBLI,
BELURU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.R RAVISHANKAR FOR R1.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1018
MFA No. 11753 of 2012
(VIDE ORDER DATED 11.07.2016 NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT,
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.5.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.156/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
BELUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the claimant challenging
the judgment and award dated 25.05.2012 passed in M.V.C
No.156/2009 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at
Belur (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') where under the claim
petition filed by the Tribunal has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts necessary for the consideration of
the present appeal are that the claimant filed a claim petition in
M.V.C No.156/2009 claiming compensation for the damages
caused to the tractor in the road traffic accident that occurred
on 22.09.2008. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein who were also
arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the Tribunal entered
appearance and contested the claim proceedings. The claimant
examined himself as PW.1 and marked the documents at Ex.P1
to Ex.P26. The respondents examined RW-1 and RW-2. The
NC: 2024:KHC:1018
Tribunal by it Judgment and award dated 25.05.2012 dismissed
the claim petition filed by the claimant. Being aggrieved, the
claimant has filed the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the
present appeal vehemently contends that the claims Tribunal
has answered issue No.1 in the Affirmative and held that the
accident has been proved. However, erroneously has answered
issued No.2 in the negative and dismissed the claim petition. It
is submitted that there is sufficient material on record to
demonstrate that damages have been caused to the vehicle in
question and the same was repaired and hence compensation
towards the same ought to have been granted. Hence he seeks
for allowing of the appeal and awarding compensation.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent
insurer justifies the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
and submits that the Tribunal has in detail examined the factual
aspect to the matter and rejected the claim made by the
appellant. Further submits that there is no material on record
to demonstrate that the vehicle in question was repaired.
Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and
NC: 2024:KHC:1018
no interference is warranted by this Court in the present
appeal.
5. The submissions made by both the learned counsel
have been considered and the material on record including the
records of the Tribunal have been perused. The question that
arises for consideration is "whether the judgment and award
passed by Tribunal is erroneous and is liable to be interfered
with".
6. The claimant in support of this contention that the
accident had occurred has produced exhibits P1 to Ex.P8 which
are the police documents as well as the motor vehicle accident
report. The finding regarding the same has been recorded in
favour of the claimant by the Tribunal. With regard to the
quantum of damages incurred by the claimant for repair of the
vehicle, the claimant has produced Ex.P9 to Ex.P18 which are
the bills issued by one Ashwini Tractors towards the repair
charges. Two photographs have also been produced as Ex.P19
to Ex.P25.
7. It is relevant to note in support of the bills marked as
Ex.P9 to Ex.P18 the claimant has not examined any witnesses.
However, the respondents have filed an application to summon
NC: 2024:KHC:1018
the authorized representative of Ashwini Tractors who was
being examined as RW.2 and the credit bill book of Ashwini
tractors has been marked as Ex.R2. The Tribunal at para No.12
of judgment had meticulously appreciated the relevant factual
aspects and has noticed that there is variation in the bill book
marked as Ex.R2 and the documents produced by the claimants
as Ex.P9 to Ex.P18.
8. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the
findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the quantum of
compensation is in any manner an erroneous which requires
interference by this Court in the present appeal.
9. It is forthcoming that the claimant has failed to
demonstrate that he has incurred any expenses for the repair
of the tractor as was sought to be contended in the claim
petition. Further as rightly noticed by the Tribunal, there is no
corroboration between the documents produced by the claimant
and the documents which have been summoned and marked as
Ex.R2. Hence, the appellants failing to demonstrate that the
finding recorded by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside by this
Court and compensation as claimed by the claimant is to be
granted.
NC: 2024:KHC:1018
10. Further it is also relevant to note that Tribunal has
noticed that the claimant has not produced any documents to
demonstrates that the vehicle in question was insurered by the
1st respondent.
11. In view of the aforementioned, the appellants have
failed in demonstrating that the award of the Tribunal is in any
manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court
in the present appeal. Hence, the above appeal is dismissed as
having been devoid of merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RMS
