Karnataka High Court
Veeranagouda vs Parameshwar And Anr on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1328
MFA No. 200289 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.200289 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VEERANAGOUDA S/O RAMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BIDARI, TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT-586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARAMESHWAR S/O PANDAPPA SONNAD,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ALAGUNDI B.K., TQ. MUDHOL,
Digitally signed
DIST. BAGALKOT-586 101.
by LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 03.03.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1328
MFA No. 200289 of 2023
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16-11-2021
PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.1596/2019 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-IV AT VIJAYAPURA AND
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM Rs.1,10,000/- WITH
6% INTEREST TO Rs.7,50,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
02. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in
MVC.No.1596/2019 dated 16.11.2021 by the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member MACT-
IV, Vijayapura, the petitioner is before this Court seeking
enhancement of the compensation in respect of the
damages caused to the vehicle.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1328
03. The factual matrix of the case is that on
07.09.2019 the petitioner while he was proceeding
towards Lokapura from his village in his Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-48-M-5751, the driver of the Tractor came
from the opposite side and dash to the Car, resulting in an
accident. The Car of the petitioner sustained damages. A
complaint came to be registered in Crime No.147/2019 on
the next day of the accident and ultimately the charge-
sheet was filed against driver of the Tractor. The petitioner
took his vehicle to Javali Automobiles Private Limited, the
authorized dealer and repairer, Unkal road, Hubballi. The
dealer issued a repair estimate of Rs.6,50,000/-. Since,
the cost of the repair was heavy, the petitioner did not get
it repaired. Therefore, he approached the Tribunal seeking
the said sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as damages.
04. On appearance, the respondent No.1 though
denied that there was any negligence on the part of the
driver of the Tractor, admitted that there was an accident,
but he alleged that the accident was due to the negligence
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1328
of the Car driver. He contended that if he is held liable for
the compensation, the same has to be fastened upon the
respondent No.2, in view of contract of policy.
05. The respondent No.2 in its written statement
reiterated the contentions of the respondent No.1 and also
contended that the compensation claimed is highly
exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. The driver of
the Tractor was not having a valid driving license. As such,
it is not liable to pay the compensation.
06. On the basis of the above contentions, the
Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The petitioner was
examined as PW.1 and one witness was examined as PW.2
and Ex.P.1 to 10 were marked in the evidence. The official
of the respondent No.2 examined its official as RW.1 and
one document was marked as Ex.R.1.
07. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the
Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- with
interest to be paid by the respondent No.2 to the
petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1328
08. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
approached this Court contending that despite there being
an estimate for Rs.6,50,000/- and such estimate having
been proved by examining the PW.2, the Tribunal failed to
appreciate the same and to award a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-
as claimed. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in
rejecting the Ex.P.9 which is the estimate issued by the
PW.2.
09. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.2 contends that the petitioner simply
stated that the vehicle was taken to Javali Automobiles
Private Limited, the authorized dealer and repairer, Unkal
road, Hubballi and he did not get the vehicle repaired. The
petitioner had not produced copy of the policy of his
vehicle and also that the petitioner had not spent any
amount towards the repairs. It is contended that in the
absence of such essential evidence, the Tribunal relied on
the valuation of the vehicle mentioned in the police
mahazar and has awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-, which
is proper and correct.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1328
10. A perusal of the evidence on record would show
that the petitioner in his testimony before the Tribunal has
stated that after the accident, he left his Car at Javali
Automobiles Private Limited, the authorized dealer and
repairer, Unkal road, Hubballi. The dealer have issued a
repair estimate of Rs.6,50,000/- and since, the cost of the
repair is heavy, he did not get the vehicle repaired.
11. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has
not produced any other material for having spent
Rs.6,50,000/- towards the repairs. In any way, the
petitioner has not spent a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-, since it is
only an estimate. In the cross-examination of the PW.1,
nothing is elicited by the insurance company to show what
is the valuation of the vehicle.
12. The PW.2, who is the Manager of the Javali
Automobiles Private Limited, the authorized dealer and
repairer, Unkal road, Hubballi, has stated that he has
issued the estimate as per Ex.P.9 and that the petitioner
has taken away the Car. In the cross-examination, it is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1328
elicited that he do not know as to whether the petitioner
has claimed the compensation from his own insurer. It is
also suggested that the repairs were not effected by Javali
Automobiles Private Limited, the authorized dealer and
repairer, Unkal road, Hubballi to the said Car.
13. On being queried by this Court to the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, he submits that he
has sold the vehicle for a sum of Rs.40,000/- as a scrap.
Thus, it is evident that in any circumstance, the vehicle
was not repaired. Moreover, from Ex.P.8 which is 'B'
Register Extract of the R.C. of the vehicle show that it was
purchased in October 2013. The accident has occurred on
07.09.2019. Thus, it is evident that the vehicle had run for
nearly 06 years. Therefore, the survey of the damages
occurred to the vehicle in the accident was necessary. In
other words, the estimate at Ex.P.9 would include all those
damages, which had occurred even prior to the accident
also.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1328
14. Coming to the impugned judgment, it is evident
that the Tribunal had nothing available on record, except
the estimate produced by the petitioner at Ex.P.9.
Obviously, the petitioner had not spent a single rupee for
the repair of the vehicle. In that circumstance, the
Tribunal squarely relied on the valuation of the entire Car,
which is available in the police papers. The property
seizure memo at Ex.P.5 would show that the valuation of
the Car was made at Rs.1,00,000/-. Except this document,
there is nothing on record to show the value of the
vehicle. There is nothing on record to show, what was the
value of the vehicle even immediately prior to the
accident.
15. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal is
justified in relying on the seizure memo, which contains
the valuation of the property. When the estimate, which is
not supported by a previous survey by a surveyor or
valuator of the vehicle, it contain all other damages to the
vehicle, which might have occurred even prior to the
accident.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1328
16. Under these circumstances, the estimate cannot
be a document, which correctly depict the damages, which
had occurred in the accident. Moreover, the petitioner has
chosen not to act upon the estimate and to get the vehicle
repaired.
17. Under these circumstances, no fault can be
found with the Tribunal in awarding a sum of
Rs.1,10,000/- towards the damages to the vehicle. This
aspect is not disputed by the respondent No.2 - insurance
company. Hence, the appeal is bereft of any merits.
Accordingly, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KJJ
CT: AK
