Karnataka High Court
Y R Manohar vs Ramesh S/O Hanumanthappa Shelke on 6 June, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7392
MFA No. 102359 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102359 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Y.R.MANOHAR,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. AMRUTHA 421/22, 2 MAIN,
7TH CROSS AMARJYOTI NAGAR,
BENGALURU,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,
1A. SMT. LALITHA W/O MANOHAR Y.R.,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NO.22, 7TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
VIJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.
1B. PRATHIMA D/O MANOHAR Y.R.,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NO.22, 7TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed by VIJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA KALMATH
Location: HIGH COURT OF 1C. PRAVIN S/O MANOHAR Y.R.,
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NO.22, 7TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
VIJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.M.NAIKWADI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
RAMESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA SHELKE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.,
1. SMT. SUDHA W/O. RAMESH SHELKE,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: SHELKE COMPLEX, DHARWAD-580 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7392
MFA No. 102359 of 2014
HC-KAR
2. SRINIVAS S/O. RAMESH SHELKE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SHELKE COMPLEX,
DHARWAD-580 001.
3. APARNA D/O. RAMESH SHELKE,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: SHELKE COMPLEX,
DHARWAD-580 001.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
J.C. ROAD, BRANCH-670 201,
LAXMI BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR,
BENGALURU-560 002.
5. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICER,
TONTADARYA VIDYAPEETHA,
PALA, BADAMI ROAD,
ROTARY CIRCLE, GADAG-582 201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SURESH P. HUDEDAGADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.06.2014, PASSED
IN MVC NO.488/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT AND
ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., DHARWAD AND ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7392
MFA No. 102359 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
The respondent No.1 has preferred this appeal
challenging the judgment and award dated 20.06.2014,
passed by the Fast Track Court and Additional MACT,
Dharwad, in MVC No.488/2010.
2. Heard the arguments of respective learned
counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the
material placed before the Court.
3. In this case accident is between ambulance
vehicle bearing No.KA-26/M-1028 and Toyota Qualis vehicle
No.KA-02/MD-6600. The ambulance vehicle is fitted with
medical and ICU equipments for carrying patients to be
admitted to KMC Hospital at Manipal. In the accident due to
rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, ambulance
vehicle was severely damaged. Therefore upon the claim
petition filed by the owner of the ambulance vehicle, the
tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- with
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7392
HC-KAR
interest at the rate of 8% p.a. The owner of the car had
challenged the said award as it is exorbitant one.
4. Admittedly from the evidence on record it is
proved that the damaged vehicle is an ambulance vehicle
having facility of ICU also and in the said accident the vehicle
was extremely damaged along with medical equipments
inside the ambulance vehicle. The documentary evidence
such as Photographs (Ex.P11), Estimation Letter (Ex.P12),
Estimation Summary (Ex.P13) and Valuation Report (Ex.P19)
proved the fact that ambulance vehicle was damaged along
with medical equipments. PW.2 is surveyor has conducted
survey before repair of ambulance vehicle. Ex.P13 is
estimation summary given by Sutaria Auto Centre, Hubli,
which discloses that ambulance vehicle requires repair cost
of Rs.4,46,429/-. Ex.P17 is valuation report submitted by
PW3, who is Chartered Engineer and Registered Valuer,
Surveyor and Loss Assessor, which states that the total
damage cost of ambulance vehicle including ICU and other
medical equipments, worth of not less than Rs.6,02,500/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7392
HC-KAR
The claimants have given evidence of both surveyors, who
have surveyed before and after repair of ambulance vehicle.
5. On these evidences, the Tribunal, has awarded a
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of their vehicle
damage including damage caused to medical and ICU
equipments fitted in the said vehicle. Further, the Tribunal
has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards towing
charges and Rs.70,000/- towards loss of income due to
accident to their ambulance vehicle holding that due to
accident to their ambulance vehicle they did not use the said
vehicle for a period of one year. Thus, in total, has awarded
a compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of deposit.
6. Upon re-appreciation of evidence on record as
above discussed, the vehicle is not a mere vehicle, but is an
ambulance vehicle with inclusion of medical and ICU
equipments. Not only ambulance vehicle damaged, but also
medical and ICU equipments were damaged. Considering the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7392
HC-KAR
evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 and documentary evidence
placed on record, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is found to be just and proper, which requires no interference
of this Court. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as
being devoid of merit.
7. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) In view of dismissal of appeal, pending
I.A's, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
iii) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
MRK-para 1 to 4.
PMP-para 5 to end.
CT:BCK
