Karnataka High Court
Mohammed vs The Divisional Controller on 4 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9155
MFA No. 8581 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8581 OF 2016 (MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED
S/O FAKRUDDIN SAB
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.30, AGASARAKERE
HARIHAR - 577 601
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
OWNER OF PICK UP VAN BEARING
REG NO KA-17-A01814
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C., DAVANAGERE DEPOT
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C. CONTROLLER
Location:
DAVANAGERE DIVISION, K.H. ROAD
HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 027.
KARNATAKA
3. THE CHAIRMAN
K.S.R.T.C., INTERNAL CONTROL
SECURITY FUND, K.H. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
4. THE MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.19/1, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS
CHIKKANNA GARDEN,
SHANKAR MUTT COMPOUND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9155
MFA No. 8581 of 2016
SHAN KARAPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 004.
5. R.M.BIRADAR
S /O MALLANA GOWDA
K.S.R.T.C. BUS DRIVER
BADGE NO.2725,
RESIDENT OF HALAVAGALU
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 583 131.
6. THE MANAGER
SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE DAVANAGERE
VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, 1ST FLOOR,
NO.85/2, AMS COMPLEX,
OPP. NANDI PETROL BUNK
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 - R3
SRI.K.POORNABODHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4
V/O/D 10/10/2018 NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH
SRI.B.V.SHIVANNA GWODA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.202/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9155
MFA No. 8581 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.202/2012
dated 20.09.2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional
MACT, at Harihar, the appellant who is the owner of the vehicle
is before this Court.
2. The appellant herein has filed the claim petition
claiming damages of an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- with interest
at the rate of 12% p.a. It is the case of the appellant that as
per the repair assessment report of the private surveyor, an
amount of Rs.83,600/- is required to repair the damaged
vehicle.
3. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the
appellant has colluded with the private surveyor and got
created fake and false report to claim higher and exorbitant
damages from the Insurance Company and it is further
observed that whatever materials that are placed by the
appellant are not reliable and further, the Insurance Company
has not disputed about the damages caused to the Ape Goods
Vehicle. As per Ex.R3 i.e., copy of the insurance policy, the
policy pertaining to the vehicle was in force and valid at the
NC: 2025:KHC:9155
given point of time and hence the Tribunal has come to the
conclusion that the appellant herein is entitled for
compensation of an amount of Rs.30,000/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the Tribunal without considering both oral and
documentary evidence that is placed before the Tribunal had
given a finding that the appellant had colluded with the
surveyor and placed the report. He submits that the vehicle is
completely damaged and it is not in a condition to use. He has
surrendered the Registration Certificate. It is further submitted
that he was eking out his livelihood by plying the said vehicle.
All these aspects were not considered by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 -
Insurance Company which has insured the KSRTC Vehicle
submits that the Tribunal had rightly granted compensation of
an amount of Rs.30,000/- and there are no grounds seeking
enhancement of the compensation. He submits that the
Tribunal had rightly held that the report of the surveyor that is
placed by the appellant is without any basis and in collusion
with the surveyor.
NC: 2025:KHC:9155
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. The Insurance Company
do not dispute the accident and the damage that is caused to
the vehicle. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the
amount that is claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. The
appellant has produced 20 photographs of his damaged vehicle
marked as Ex.P22 and also produced Ex.P21 i.e., the repair
assessment report and as per the said report, the market value
of the said vehicle as on the date the accident had taken place
is an amount of Rs.65,000/-. But for repair of the same, the
appellant has to incur an amount of Rs.83,600/-.
7. This Court has perused the order passed by the
Tribunal and there is no reasoning given by the Court on what
basis the Tribunal had disbelieved the surveyor report and the
finding is recorded by the Court saying that such a report has
been obtained by collusion between the appellant and the
surveyor. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said
reasoning given by the Tribunal is without any basis. When the
order is passed on 20.09.2016, at this point of time, remanding
the matter to the trial Court would not serve any purpose.
NC: 2025:KHC:9155
Considering the fact that there is damage to the vehicle and
looking at Ex.P22 - 20 photographs and he has already
surrendered Registration Certificate and as per the surveyor
report, the market value of the vehicle is shown as
Rs.65,000/-, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the
compensation from an amount of Rs.30,000/- to an amount of
Rs.65,000/-.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
i. The compensation is enhanced from an
amount of Rs.30,000/- to an amount of
Rs.65,000/-.
ii. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
iii. The respondent - insurance company shall
deposit the amount within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the
judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing any security.
iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court
forthwith without any delay.
NC: 2025:KHC:9155
v. No costs.
vi. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
