Karnataka High Court
Nwkrtc vs Mrs. Deepa V Kadam on 30 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16006
MFA No. 22950 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22950 OF 2012 (MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
N.W.K.R.T.C , R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI I. C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. DEEPA V. KADAM,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: LORRY DRIVER,
R/O: 474-C, BEHIND EKTA ENGINEERING,
SHANTI NAGAR, VASCO - DISCIPLINARYF
ACTION-GAMA GOA, OWNER OF THE VEHICLE.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBBALLI,
COVER NOTE NO.AA 41925.
VALID FROM 11.02.2008 TO 10.02.2009.
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed (BY SRI M. Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO.15/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
M.A.C.T., HUBBALLI, MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED
IN MVC NO.15/2011 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., HUBBALLI DATED 09.01.2012 AND ALLOW
THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
AMOUNT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16006
MFA No. 22950 of 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 by the claimant challenging
the judgment and award dated 09.01.2012 in
M.V.C.No.15/2011 passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and CJM and Additional MACT, Hubballi2.
2. The appellant/claimant filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Act in MVC No.15/2011
claiming compensation for the damages caused to its bus
in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 12.04.2008. It
is the case of the claimant that its bus hit the offending
lorry, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner on the date of the accident, while the
driver of the offending lorry was overtaking another lorry.
The owner of the offending lorry was arrayed as
respondent No.1 and the insurer of the said lorry was
arrayed as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal.
Hereinafter referred to as "the Act"
Hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16006
Respondent No.2 entered appearance before the Tribunal
and contested the claim proceedings. The Tribunal by its
judgment and award dated 09.01.2012 awarded a sum of
Rs.2,766/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from
the date of petition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is
filed.
3. Heard the submissions of the learned
Counsel, Sri. I. C. Patil, for the appellant, and the learned
counsel, Sri. M. Y. Katagi, for the respondent No.2-
Insurer. Perused the records including the records of the
Tribunal.
4. The finding of the Tribunal on negligence
and liability are not under challenge. Hence, the said
aspects are not adjudicated in the present appeal.
5. The sole contention urged by the learned
counsel for the appellant is that, the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side
inasmuch as the claimant has incurred a total sum of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16006
Rs.21,694/- towards repair charges and it is entitled to a
further sum of Rs.99,000/- towards loss of earnings.
Hence, a total claim of Rs.1,17,928/- was made.
6. The Assistant Mechanical Engineer-service
of the appellant is examined as PW1. It is forthcoming
from Ex.P6 that the cost of materials is a sum of
Rs.2,766/- and the cost of labour is a sum of Rs.6,217/-.
The Tribunal has awarded only the cost of materials and
has not awarded the cost of labour since the repairs were
carried out by the employees of the claimant. However, it
is relevant to note that although the repairs have been
carried out by the workmen of the claimant, it is entitled
for reimbursement of the said expenses having regard to
the finding recorded by the Tribunal on negligence.
7. Although, the Tribunal has recorded a
finding that no material has been produced as to the
amounts paid to the workers, having regard to the fact
that the claimant has produced Ex.P6 and the fact that the
bus was repaired in the workshop of the claimant itself
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16006
being undisputed, the cost of labour charges in a sum of
Rs.6,217/- also ought to have been awarded by the
Tribunal.
8. With regard to the loss of damage, the
learned counsel for the respondent No.2 places reliance on
a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of North West Karnataka Transport Corporation
v. Pushpaja w/o.Suhas Prabhu and another3 wherein
this Court has considered Section 72 of the Act and Rule
69-A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and held
that when a stage carriage permit has been issued to a
vehicle by the authorities, a condition having been
incorporated that the permit holder will have a
spare/reserve vehicle for being plied on the road, in the
eventuality of the vehicle which has been issued the
permit breaking down or being stationed for repair or for
whatsoever reason if said vehicle is not plied, the question
of awarding damages does not arise.
Order dated 10.01.2014 in MFA No.22143/2009
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16006
9. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The above appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated
09.01.2012 in M.V.C.No.15/2011 passed
by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM
and Additional MACT, Hubballi is modified
only to the extent of awarding further
compensation of Rs.6,217/- in addition to
the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
iii) The respondent No.2 shall pay the
enhanced compensation amount along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
iv) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in
all other respect remains unaltered.
v) Modified award to be drawn accordingly.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
YAN,SH
