Karnataka High Court
Santosh S/O Dattatraya Mane vs Radheshyam And Anr on 28 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3339
MFA No. 201473 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201473 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SANTOSH S/O DATTATRAYA MANE
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O NAMRATA HOUSING SOCIETY,
VIJAYAPURA ROAD, SOLAPUR,
NOW RESIDING AT KARJOL,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by
KHAJAAMEEN L 1. RADHESHYAM S/O JAGANNATH BAHITE,
MALAGHAN AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH R/O MARWAD GALLI, AHMEDPUR, DIST. LATUR,
COURT OF MAHARASHTRA-416416.
KARNATAKA
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
AT VIJAYAPURA-586101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 20.09.2022 NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT )
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3339
MFA No. 201473 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2018
PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT NO.XII, AT VIJAYAPURA, IN
M.V.C.NO.1611/2012.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of
compensation awarded by the III-Addl. Senior Civil Judge
& MACT-XII, Vijayapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.1611/2012 dated
22.11.2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant/appellant that he
is the owner of TATA Indigo car bearing Reg.No.MH-13/AL-
1888 and the said car met with an accident on 02.02.2011
at 00:15 hours near Tamlwadi on Tamlwadi-Tulajapur
road, due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing
Reg.No.MH-24/F-7720. As a result of which the said car
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3339
was completely damaged. With these reasons, the
claimant prayed to award compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-.
4. Respondent No.2/insurer has denied the entire
case of the petitioner and it has contended that accident
has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of car by
its driver.
5. From the rival contentions of both the parties,
the Tribunal had framed the necessary issues for its
determination.
6. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to 8 and closed his evidence. Respondent
No.2 had not examined any witnesses, however got
marked Exs.R1 to 6.
7. After hearing both the parties and appreciating
the evidence available on record, the Tribunal by the
impugned judgment and award, awarded compensation of
Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a..
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3339
8. The fact of accident and damage to the vehicle
as mentioned in the motor vehicle's inspection report is
not seriously disputed. The claimant is the owner of the
vehicle is also not seriously disputed before the Tribunal.
The dispute is in respect of damage to the vehicle.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant
vehemently contends that appellant through a private
surveyor, got assessed the damage to the vehicle. He did
not get repaired the said vehicle since repair charges were
nearer to its value and he sold the said vehicle for
Rs.70,000/-. The Tribunal held that petitioner did not
examine the owner of the garage or the surveyor to prove
the damage caused to the vehicle due to the accident.
Hence failed to prove the same. In the absence of oral
evidence, the Court could have considered the FIR,
Mahazar as well as motor vehicle inspection report,
wherein damage to the vehicle are stated, which
corroborate to the case of the appellant and assessed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3339
compensation. The vehicle became scrap. Hence, prayed
to enhance the compensation.
10. The learned counsel for respondent No.2
vehemently submits that the Tribunal has properly
appreciated the materials available on record and awarded
the compensation. The said amount is also on the higher
side. The claimant did not examine the surveyor who
assessed the damage; even not examined the owner of
the garage, wherein it was sold or given for repair. In the
absence of material evidence, the claimant is not entitled
for enhancement. Moreover, the claimant even has not
produced RC to show that the vehicle was transferred or
sold for Rs.70,000/- as a scrap. Under these
circumstances, he is not entitled for enhancement.
11. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellant holds some water. Considering the FIR, Mahazar
as well as motor vehicle inspection report, which shows
that there were several damage and even the motor
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3339
vehicle inspector who is a government servant, noted in
the vehicle inspection report that it is not road worthy and
it was completely damaged, therefore, he could not assess
the value of the vehicle. In the cross-examination, PW.1
had stated that he could not repair the said vehicle and he
sold it for Rs.70,000/- and the garage owner got it
repaired and sold it to some third person. The said fact
was not seriously disputed before the Tribunal. If the said
vehicle was worth repair, then owner could have got it
repaired. Considering all these facts and circumstances,
the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on
much lower side which needs to be enhanced.
12. Considering the above said evidence; both oral
and documentary evidence led by the claimant, it is
deemed appropriate to enhance the compensation by a
sum of Rs.80,000/- in addition to compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.
13. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of
9% p.a.. However, on the enhanced amount he is entitled
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3339
for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till realization of entire amount. It is not in dispute that
respondent No.2 is insurer of the offended lorry.
Therefore, it is liable to pay the compensation.
14. For the aforesaid discussion, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by
the III-Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-XII,
Vijayapura in MVC.No.1611/2012 dated
22.11.2018 is modified.
iii. An amount of Rs.80,000/- is enhanced in
addition to compensation awarded by the
Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
on the enhanced amount of compensation
from the date of petition till realization of said
amount.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3339
iv. Respondent No.2 - insurance company shall
deposit the said amount with interest before
the Tribunal within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
v. The registry is directed to send back the Trial
Court records.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SDU
CT:PK
