Karnataka High Court
Smt.Bharati vs M/S Karnataka Enterprises And Anr on 23 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326
MFA No. 201079 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201079 OF 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. BHARATI W/O MALLAPPA
@ MALLANAGOUDA CHOUDARI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HARNAL, TQ: SINDAGI,
NOW RESIDING AT ADARSH NAGAR,
VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA ENTERPRISES ,
BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SMT. KULSOOM FATIMA KHAN,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
by RAMESH OCC: BUSINESS,
MATHAPATI R/O: PLOT NO.1, KHAN COMPLEX,
Location: HIGH OPP: GDA COLONY, SEDAM ROAD,
COURT OF KALABURAGI - 585 101.
KARNATAKA
2. THE MANAGER LEGAL,
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
UNIT, 9TH FLOOR, LEVEL-6,
GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX,
59TH C-CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
RAJAJI NAGAR, 4TH MAIN,
BANGALORE - 560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326
MFA No. 201079 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 15.04.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND MEMBER MACT-V, VIJAYPAURA IN MVC
NO.593/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 15.04.2019
passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM & Member MACT-V,
Vijaypur (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC No.593/2016, this appeal
is filed.
2. Sri S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel submitted
appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It
was submitted on 15.12.2015 at about 6.00 p.m., when
Mallappa @ Mallanagouda along with driver Appu Dhawalagi
were proceeding towards Jewargi on tractor/Harvesting
Machine bearing registration no.KA-28/TB-3926-27 on
Vijayapura-Gulbarga road, near Nedalagi village, driver of lorry
bearing registration no.KA-32/B-5955 drove it in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against Harvesting Machine. In
said accident, Mallappa sustained grievous injuries and died
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326
HC-KAR
during treatment. Harvesting Machine purchased for
Rs.12,00,000/- sustained severe damages. Wife of Mallappa
filed MVC no.593/2016 under Section 166 of M.V.Act, claiming
compensation for damages caused to Harvesting Machine.
3. On service of notice, owner of lorry did not appear.
He was placed ex-parte. Only insurer opposed claim petition by
filing objections denying accident, involvement of insured
vehicle in said accident as well as damages sustained to
Harvesting Machine. It alleged violation of policy conditions by
insured.
4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant examined herself as PW.1 and also
examined Anand Vaidya-insurance surveyor as PW.3 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P13A. In response, insurer did not lead oral
evidence but got marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1 with
consent.
5. On consideration, tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver,
claimant had sustained loss due to damages to Harvesting
Machine and insurer was liable to pay compensation. It
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326
HC-KAR
awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with
interest at 9% p.a. Dissatisfied with award, claimant was in
appeal.
6. It was submitted Harvesting Machine was
purchased for sum of Rs.12,00,000/- by availing loan from
financial institution. Due to damages sustained in accident,
Harvesting Machine was rendered unusable, while claimant got
the tractor attached to it repaired by spending Rs.1,63,836/-.
Under incorrect presumption that amount spend towards repair
of tractor was in respect of entire Harvesting Machine, tribunal
had granted inadequate compensation. On said grounds sought
enhancement.
7. On other hand, Sri Manjunath Mallayya Shetty,
learned counsel for respondent-insurer opposed appeal. It was
submitted claimant had failed to produce material about
amount required for repair of Harvesting Machine. Tribunal had
appreciated repair estimates produced and awarded global
compensation, same was justified and did not call for
interference.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326
HC-KAR
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
9. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for
enhancement of compensation, point that would arise for
consideration is:
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought for?"
10. From above, occurrence of accident, involving
claimant's Harvesting Machine belonging to claimant's husband
and lorry insured with respondent no.2-insurer are not in
dispute. Tribunal held claimant had established damages being
sustained by Harvesting Machine. Insurer has not preferred
appeal against said finding. Therefore, extent of damages
sustained and whether award is commensurate has to be
examined. To substantiate extent of damages, loss of value or
cost of repairs, claimant relied on Exs.P7 to P13A namely
Registration Certificate book of Harvesting Machine, estimation
report, Motor Vehicle's Inspector report, estimate given by
private insurance surveyor and estimation of tractor repair,
photographs and CD. While passing impugned award, tribunal
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326
HC-KAR
referred to estimation report given by private insurance
surveyor which was for Rs.7,70,000/-. It observed estimation
report at Ex.P12, issued by V K Commercial Corporation,
Sindhanur, was issued after filing of claim petition and was not
supported by report of any surveyor. Admittedly, claimant had
examined Anand Vaidya, private insurance surveyor as PW.3,
who had issued Ex.P8. In cross-examination, it is elicited that
accident occurred on 15.12.2015, inspection done by him was
on 21.03.2016 and report was issued on 22.05.2017. He was
also cross-examined about delay in survey, witness explained
that same was due to receipt of intimation belatedly.
Suggestions made about damages sustained by Harvesting
Machine were not be related to accident in question were
denied. Suggestions about such damages may have been
caused due to involvement of vehicle in some other accident is
also denied. It has to be noted that no material was placed to
establish improvement of Harvester Machine in any other
accident. Ex.P9-MVI report reveals damages sustained by
Harvesting Machine were as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326
HC-KAR
"6.(b)(II) Registration Number :KA-28-TB/3926/27
ii. KA 28 TB 3926/27 :- Cutting frame of Harvester (rear) damaged and came
out flames and its fixture.
2. Front bumper, radiator, rear both wheels arches are pressed and damaged.
3. Rear body pressed in words and silencer pipe found bend.
4. Trailor rear both wheels dislocated from m.v. with rear axle.
5. Cop hood of tractor found pressed in words.
6. Fodder (Cutter bar) found damaged."
11. Ex.P8 is accident vehicle repair cost assessement by
Anand Vaidya-PW3. Spare parts required for repair and their
approximate value mentioned therein is as follows:
Spare Parts
Sr.No. Description At Cost
1 Cutter bar assy (Crushed badly & Cut) 150000.00
2 Reel assy (Crushed & Cut) 35000.00
3 Tank assy (Staorage) - Folded 20000.00
4 Stawker assy 5 set (Allowed two set only) 16000.00
5 Front axle (Bent) 35000.00
6 Hissa & Chulla assy - Crumpled 45000.00
7 Body assy (Complete body affected badly) 250000.00
8 Elevtor assy (Folded & bent) 20000.00
9 Other parts (like nut bolts, hard ware 30000.00
materials, belts, chains etc)
10 Welding / cutting and aligning charges 35000.00
11 Labour charges (Allowed all parts fabricating 50000.00
and fixing charges
Total 686000.00
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326
HC-KAR
12. Ex.P10 is repair bill issued by M/s.Renuka Agro
Engineering Company. Claimant has also produced an estimate
issued by VK Commercial Corporation, Sindhanur, dealer of
Harvesting Machine of cost of repairs as follows:
Sl.no. Description Qty U.Price Total cost
1 Cutter Bar Assembly 1 set 200000.00 150000.00
2 Reel Assembly 1 set 35000.00 35000.00
3 Tank Assembly 1 set 20000.00 20000.00
4 Stawker Assembly 5 set 8000.00 40000.00
5 Front Axle Set 1 set 45000.00 45000.00
6 Hissa and Chulla Assembly 1 set 60000.00 60000.00
7 Body Assembly 1 set 300000.00 250000.00
8 Elevetor Assembly 2 set 10000.00 20000.00
9 Other parts 50000.00
9 Welding works 50000.00
10 Labour Charges 50000.00
Total Amount 770000.00
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy thousand only)
13. Copies of photographs of damaged Harvesting
Machine, marked as Ex.P13 indicates extensive damage
sustained by Harvesting Machine. Since it involves many
moving parts wherein damages sustained are dents and bends
which result in mis-alignment and consequent affect or non-
functionality of that part, rendering Harvesting Machine
inoperable. Unlike in normal motor vehicles where there are
functional parts and show parts, in Harvestor Machine there are
virtually no show-parts and it is almost comprised of functional
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326
HC-KAR
parts. In oral evidence, claimant has re-iterated about damages
sustained by Harvesting Machine and loss of income on that
count. During cross-examination, suggestions about Harvesting
Machine not earning income as claimed were made and denied.
It is elicited that Harvesting Machine was still lying un-repaired
and about Ex.P8 survey report not pertaining to Harvesting
Machine in question. While, there is some material in support of
claimant's assertions, insurer did not lead oral evidence. While
passing impugned award, tribunal has not referred to said
material. Ignoring that Ex.P8, estimation report was by
recognized private insurance surveyor and who had also
deposed as PW.3, it observed that petitioner's claim was not
supported by report of surveyor. Said observation would be
contrary to material on record.
14. Taking note of fact that there is overlapping of
estimate cost between Ex.P8 and P11, with a difference of
nearly Rs.1,00,000/-, it would be appropriate to adopt later
estimate at Ex.P8. Said estimation is also supported by
deposition of PW.3. Under above circumstances, award of
global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as done by tribunal
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326
HC-KAR
would not be justified. It would be appropriate to award
amount mentioned in Ex.P8 i.e., Rs.6,86,000/-
15. Apart from above, on account of damages sustained
and inability of claimant to fund repair while insurer refused to
indemnify claimant, there is loss of earnings from said
Harvesting Machine. In absence of any specific material about
quantum of loss and keeping in mind that claimant has
disposed about payment of loan EMIs during said period, it
would be appropriate to award lump-sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as
loss of income due to lay-off. Point for consideration is
answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently,
following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Judgment and award passed by tribunal is
modified.
(iii) Claimant is held entitled for compensation of
Rs.8,86,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from date of claim petition till deposit.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326
HC-KAR
(iv) Respondent-insurer is directed to deposit
same before Tribunal within a period of six
weeks.
(v) On deposit, tribunal is directed to release
same in favour of claimant on proper
identification.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
MSR
Ct;Vk
