Karnataka High Court
Mr Jeson D Souza @ D Souza Jeson vs Hanumanthegouda B Patil on 30 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30100
MFA No. 7394 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7394 OF 2018 (MV-
DM)
BETWEEN:
MR JESON D SOUZA @ D SOUZA JESON
S/O LATE JAMES D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT VIVEK NAGAR HOUSE
PANJIMOGARU POST, MANGALORE-13
NOW R/AT FLAT NO.13
5TH FLOOR, SURVEY NO.83-5
NEHAL APARTMENT
OPP:OLD KACHERA DEPOT
KOTHRUD, PUNE-38.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HANUMANTHEGOUDA B PATIL
Digitally signed by S/O BHIMANAGOUDA
HEMALATHA A AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/AT LAXANATTI APARTMENTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MUDHOL TALUK, BAGALKOT -587 101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE IFFOC-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
SUDEV PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR
DAJIBAN PETH, OPP:LAXMI TEMPLE
HUBLI-580029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMTHA S SHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30100
MFA No. 7394 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15/07/2016,
PASSED IN MVC NO.255/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT,
MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been
filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment
dated 15.07.2016 passed by MACT and II Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. in MVC No.255/2015.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that the petitioner is the RC owner of the Car
bearing Registration No.MH-12-HV-201. On 28.12.2014 at
about 06.00 p.m., the petitioner was driving the said Car
from the side of Valencia towards Panambur on NH-66 i.e.
Nanthoor-Kuloor high way slowly and carefully by
observing the rules and regulations of the traffic and
NC: 2024:KHC:30100
proceeding on the extreme left side of the tar road. At
about 06.00 p.m., when the Car reached near Kodiakl
cross on NH-66, Nanthoor-Kuloor road, Mangalore Taluk,
the driver of the tanker lorry bearing Registration No.AP-
16-TC-4757 drove the same in high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and came from hind side and dashed to
the hind side of the said car. As a result of the aforesaid
accident, the said Car was turned and dashed to the
divider.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Act seeking compensation for the damage caused to his
vehicle. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred
purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition. The
NC: 2024:KHC:30100
respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear
before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded
the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case,
examined himself as PW-1, and other two witnesses were
examined as PW-2 and PW-3, and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. On behalf of the
respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited a
document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the
impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took
place on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the
vehicle of the claimant has been damaged. The Tribunal
further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation
of Rs.1,17,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest. Being
aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:30100
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted
that the claimant is the owner of the vehicle bearing
Registration No.MH-12-HV-201. Due to the accident, his
vehicle was damaged. He has produced Ex.P16-Inspection
report submitted by the surveyor and Ex.P17-Estimation,
which disclosed that the car was repaired in the show
room and charge for the same was Rs.2,50,343.61 Ps. He
also produced Ex.P18 and Ex.P19, the receipt and tax
invoice for Rs.2,08,203/- for affecting the repairs work in
respect of the damages caused to the car of the claimant.
Therefore, it is very clear that the claimant has produced
necessary documents to show that he has invested more
than Rs.2,50,000/-. The Tribunal has erred in not
considering Ex.P16 to Ex.P20. Hence, he sought for
enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has submitted that even thought the
survey inspection report discloses that the vehicle requires
NC: 2024:KHC:30100
Rs.2,50,343.61 Ps. for repairs, the model of the vehicle is
of the year 2012 and the total repair charges claimed by
the claimant is on higher side. Considering the vehicle
model, evidence of the parties and documents available on
record, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is just and reasonable. He further contended that in light
of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others -v- Venkateshan.V and
others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters
disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded
by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount
appears excessive. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant's car bearing
No.MH-12-HV-201 was damaged in the road traffic
accident occurred on 28.12.2014 due to rash and
NC: 2024:KHC:30100
negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing No.AP-16-
TC-4757 by its driver.
10. The claimant has produced Ex.P16-Inspection report
issued by the surveyor, which reflects that Rs.2,50,343.61
Ps. required for the purpose of repairs. Ex.P18 and Ex.P19,
the receipt and tax invoice for Rs.2,08,203/- for affecting
the repairs work in respect of the damages caused to the
car of the claimant. He also produced Ex.P20, letter issued
by the Cauvery Ford Company for the purpose of picking
of the damaged car from Urwa Police Station to the
Garage. Considering the evidences of PW-1-claimant, PW-
2-Surveyor and PW-3-Manager of the Garage and Ex.P16
to Ex.20, I am of the opinion that the compensation of
Rs.1,17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal has to be enhanced
to Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.
11. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:30100
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/-.
d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE' (supra), the
enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6%
per annum.
e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest
from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
date of realization, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
f) In view of the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by this
Court, the claimant is not entitled to interest on the
enhanced compensation for the delayed period of
671 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
HA
