Karnataka High Court
Bmtc vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd on 28 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8670
MFA No. 3567 of 2022
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
M.F.A. NO. 3567 OF 2022 (MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
BMTC
CENTRAL OFFICE,
K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU.
REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RADHA B. P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, RD BLOCK,
NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 052.
2. MANJUNATHA B. N.,
Digitally signed by S/O. NAGARAJA B. A.,
AASEEFA PARVEEN
SHRI. MARUTHI NILAYA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SHRI. BALAJI AUTOMOBILES,
KARNATAKA B. B. ROAD, DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. MAHESH K.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO.6422/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU SCCH-18, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8670
MFA No. 3567 of 2022
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Disputing the validity and legality of the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru
in MVC No.6422/2019 dated 13.12.2021, the present
appeal is filed.
2. Heard Smt.Radha.B.P, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.Prdeep.B, learned counsel for
respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 did not choose to
submit his contentions.
3. On the ground that its bus bearing registration
No.KA-57-F-1261 met with a road traffic accident due to
which the vehicle got damaged and thereby loss, if
quantified, to a tune of Rs.3,00,000/- is sustained, the
appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned
NC: 2025:KHC:8670
order awarded a sum of Rs.83,293/- as compensation
towards damages. Aggrieved by the same, the present
appeal is filed.
4. The matrix of the case as projected by the
appellant before the Tribunal is that on 27.07.2018 at
about 9.05 a.m. while its driver was driving the Volvo bus
bearing registration No.KA-57-F-1261 from
Madanayakanahalli to Manyatha Tech Park and when the
bus reached near Kodegenahalli Gate, the driver of Ashok
Leyland bus bearing registration No.KA-43-5109 drove the
said bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against its bus due to which the bus
was badly damaged. The bus was kept in workshop for
repairs for more than 13 days and thereby huge loss was
sustained.
5. Arguing the matter, Smt.B.P.Radha, learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that through operation
of the bus in question, the appellant was earning
Rs.12,844/- per day. The bus was kept at workshop for
NC: 2025:KHC:8670
more than 13 days for effecting the required repairs.
Thereby the appellant sustained loss of Rs.12,844/- each
day. Though through the evidence of Pw.3 and Ex.P10 -
Income and Loss statement, the appellant established the
loss sustained, without appreciating the same, the Tribunal
awarded meager sum of Rs.83,293/- towards damages
and therefore, awarding the sum claimed, the appeal may
be allowed.
6. The submission that is made by the learned
counsel for respondent No.1 Sri.Pradeep.B on the other
hand is that the total loss sustained by the appellant itself
is Rs.9,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.83,293/- as damages and thus the appeal itself is not
maintainable. Learned counsel also stated that for
effecting the required repairs, one day is more than
sufficient. Learned counsel also contended that the
witnesses who were produced by the appellant, during the
course of cross examination clearly admitted that the
spare buses were available at the relevant period which
NC: 2025:KHC:8670
itself establishes that the appellant did not sustain any
loss. Learned counsel also contended that as loss of
revenue was not established before the Tribunal, the
appellant is not entitled for any further sum towards
damages. In support of the submission thus made, learned
counsel for respondent No.1 placed reliance upon the
decision that is rendered by this Court of Dharwad Bench
in the case between North West Karnataka Transport
Corporation vs. Pushpaja and Another in MFA
No.22143/2009 dated 10.01.2014.
7. For claiming any sum towards damages due to
disfunction or malfunction of a vehicle and the resultant
loss sustained, the claimant is required to establish in
certain terms the following facts:
(i) That the vehicle in question was damaged
in the course of accident.
(ii) The extent of damage caused to each part
of the vehicle.
(iii) Exact time that is required to be spent for
effecting the required repairs.
NC: 2025:KHC:8670
(iv) The sum incurred for effecting such repairs
including replacement of damaged parts
through spare parts if any and payment of
charges to the mechanic for effecting those
repairs.
(v) Amount if any spent for shifting the vehicle
from the place of accident to the Garage.
(vi) The sum which was being earned through
use of said vehicle.
(vii) The expenditure that was being incurred
per day for plying the said vehicle on road
including its maintenance.
(viii) The net profit that was being received.
(ix) Whether there was any possibility for
substituting the said vehicle with any spare
vehicle and if so whether it was done.
(x) In case the vehicle was substituted by
spare vehicle, the loss if any sustained
even after such substitution.
(xi) Amount if any incurred for engaging or
hiring another vehicle.
8. In the case on hand, the appellant failed to
produce such cogent and convincing evidence to show that
NC: 2025:KHC:8670
13 days period was actually required to effect the required
repairs. By the evidence that is brought on record it is
clear that the vehicle in question remained at Hebbal
Police Station for 2 days. For what purpose it was there at
Police Station for the said period and why the appellant
failed to take immediate steps claiming custody of the
vehicle for effecting the required repairs is not made clear
anywhere. Also by the evidence that is brought on record,
it is clear that the appellant entered into an agreement
with M/s. Embassy Services Private Limited for a period of
36 months. As per the version of the appellant the vehicle
could not be put in use for 13 days. No convincing material
is on record to show that M/s. Embassy Services Private
Limited deducted the amount payable for 13 days during
which the vehicle was not provided as per the version of
the appellant. Without these facts being clearly brought on
record, it is not possible to hold that the vehicle was kept
idle for 13 days for the reason of effecting required repairs
and that the said period is essential for effecting repairs
NC: 2025:KHC:8670
and also that the appellant sustained loss due to non-
operation of the vehicle for the said period.
9. The Tribunal subjecting the entire evidence to
scrutiny i.e., the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P30
came to a just conclusion with regard to each and every
aspect of the case and ultimately held that the appellant is
entitled to damages to a tune of Rs.83,293/-.
10. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there
are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the well
reasoned order of the Tribunal. Thus this Court ultimately
holds that the appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal.
Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed without
costs.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
