Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Rudrappa on 17 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20788
MFA No. 6941 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6941 OF 2016 (MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, S.S.COMPLEX,
SHUBAS SQUARE,
HASSAN.
BY
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX,
LAMINGTON ROAD,
HUBLI-580 020.
BY ITS MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
ANNAPURNA G 1. RUDRAPPA
Location: HIGH AGED 59 YEARS,
COURT OF S/O.LATE SIDDAPPA,
KARNATAKA R/O.SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE,
BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
AT PRESENTLY R/O.
RUDRAPPA,
AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O.LATE SIDDAPPA,
C/O.DOOR NO.16:591,
3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS,
SHANTHINAGARA,
HASSAN-573 201.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20788
MFA No. 6941 of 2016
HC-KAR
2. SATHYANARAYANA S.K
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O.KRISHNAMURTHI,
NEAR WATERPILLER HOUSE,
LAKSHMIPURA EXTENSION,
SAKALESHAPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 04/03/2024,
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD-SUFFICIENT,
VIDE ORDER DATED 19/10/16,
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.583/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment
and award 8.07.2016 passed by the V Additional District and
Sessions Court, Additional MACT, Hassan in MVC.No.583/2015 (for
short 'the Tribunal').
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before
the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.01.2014 at
about 7.00 a.m., the petitioner parked the tractor bearing
NC: 2025:KHC:20788
HC-KAR
registration No.KA-13-693 near Dummenahalli village on
Chikkamagaluru road and waiting for the labourers. At that time, a
car bearing registration No.KA-46-M-2626, driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner, hit the tractor. As a result, the said
tractor was damaged and the petitioner incurred an expense of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards repair of the said vehicle. The said vehicle
was parked in the garage for more than a month, during that period
the petitioner lost income of Rs.1,50,000/-. For these reasons, the
petitioners prayed to award compensation of Rs.3,30,000/-.
4. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2
is the insurer of the car. Respondents filed written statement
denying the contention of the claimant and prayed for dismissal of
the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal framed the necessary issues for
determination.
6. To prove his case, the claimant had examined himself as
PW-1 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. Respondent No.2
examined one witness as RW-1 and marked one document as Ex.R1.
The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, held that the said tractor
was damaged in the alleged incident and awarded compensation of
Rs.50,000/-. Same is challenged by the insurer in the present appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:20788
HC-KAR
7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant - insurer.
8. It is the duty of the claimant to prove that he was the
owner of the said vehicle as on the date of accident and he had
actually spent Rs.1,00,000/- to repair the tractor-trailor. However,
the claimant has not produced the RC of the vehicle to prove his
ownership as on the date of the accident. The claimant has produced
a Motor vehicle inspection report at Ex.P8, which pertains to the car
bearing registration No.KA-46-M-2626. The document does not show
any damage to the claimants vehicle.
9. Prior to the repair of the said vehicle or immediately
after the accident, the claimant has not assessed the estimated cost
of repair by an approved valuer. He has only produced the receipt at
Ex.P12. According to photograph produced by the claimant, there
were some damage to the tractor. The claimant has not examined
the owner of the garage to prove the damage to the tractor due to
the accident in question. There are no materials to substantiate that
the said tractor was damaged in the alleged vehicle accident.
10. The Tribunal based solely on the oral evidence of PW-1,
awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The said finding is based on
mere presumption and is not tenable. Therefore, interference with
the said finding is required.
NC: 2025:KHC:20788
HC-KAR
11. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated
08.07.2016 passed by V Additional District and
Sessions Court and Additional MACT at Hassan in
MVC.No.583/2015 is set aside. The claim petition
is dismissed.
iii. Whatever the amount deposited by the Insurance
company, shall be refunded to it on due
identification.
iv. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court
records along with the copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
AG
