Karnataka High Court
Mr.Nikil C Suvarna vs Managing Director on 6 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9449
MFA No. 4548 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4548 OF 2014
(MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
MR. NIKIL.C.SUVARNA
S/O MR.C.S.SUVARNA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT:1, N, 31-2661,
SWARNA DEEPA, ASHOK NAGARA,
MANGALORE-575 001.
D.K. DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.SHASHIKANTH PRASAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.S.R.T.C., SHANTHI NAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
Digitally signed by 2. UNITED INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH 2ND FLOOR, JEWEL PLAZA,
COURT OF MARUTHI VEETHI,
KARNATAKA
UDUPI-576 101.
...RESPONDENTS
( NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:25.11.2015;
BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.748/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL.MACT, UDUPI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9449
MFA No. 4548 of 2014
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.K.Shashikanth Prasad., learned counsel for the
appellant has appeared in person.
Though the appeal is listed today for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the appellant, it is heard finally.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and ranking before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on the 23rd day of
March 2011 at about 5:15 p.m., he being the owner of the Tata
Indica Taxi Car bearing Reg. No.KA-19-C-8407, that was driven
by driver carrying passengers from Mangalore to Udupi on
N.H.66. When it reached near Guddeyangadi of Hejamadi
Village, one KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA-01-FA-1954 came
from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and
hit against the claimant's vehicle. As a result of which, the
claimant's vehicle was completely damaged. It is contended
that the claimant has incurred huge amount for towing,
NC: 2024:KHC:9449
replacement, loss of monthly income, mental agony and other
expenses and accordingly filed claim petition.
In response to the notice, the first respondent filed
objections and denied averment made in the claim petition and
prayed for dismissal of the claim. The second respondent
insurer of the offending vehicle also filed the objections and
denied the averment made in the claim petition and among
other grounds, they prayed for the dismissal of the claim
petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:31.12.2013 allowed the claim
petition in part and awarded Rs.94,000/- (Rupees Ninety Four
Thousand only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit of the entire compensation
amount. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this
Appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of
Miscellaneous First Appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:9449
4. Counsel Sri.K.Shashikanth Prasad., submits that the
Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record
and law.
Next, he submits that the grant of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees
Ninety Thousand only) for vehicle damages is not correct and it
has to be reconsidered.
A further submission is made that due to the accident
major parts of the Car were damaged. Learned counsel
vehemently contended that the Tribunal has not properly
considered Ex.P.7 the Motor (Final) Survey Report.
Lastly, he contended that viewed from any angle the
judgment of Tribunal is unsustainable in law. Hence, the appeal
may be allowed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant
and perused the appeal papers and also the records with
utmost care.
5. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.
NC: 2024:KHC:9449
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration.
An attempt is made on behalf of claimant that due to the
accident, the major parts of the Car were damaged and to
repair the same, he incurred huge expenses. However, the
claimant has not furnished the bills regarding the expenses that
incurred towards the repair of the vehicle. Furthermore, the
Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and rightly
concluded that the claimant is entitled for Rs.90,000/- (Rupees
Ninety Thousand only) towards vehicle damages.
In my view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper. I find no reasons to interfere with the
Judgment and the appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to
be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
