Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance Company Ltd vs The N.W.K.R.T.C on 26 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560
MFA No. 22568 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22568 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT HUBLI,
REP. ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NOW REP.BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE,
ARIHANT ARCADE, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE N.W.K.R.T.C, GADAG DIVISION, GADAG,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. GADAG.
Digitally signed 2. N. H. KATEGERI,
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.5333,
PATTIHAL
Location: High RAGHUNATH PETH, ANGOL, DIST: BELGAUM.
Court of
Karnataka,
...RESPONDENTS
Dharwad Bench (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1)
OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, HEAR
THE PARTIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, GADAG
IN MVC NO.393 OF 2010 DATED 26.07.2012 WITH COST AND
INTERESTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560
MFA No. 22568 of 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
1. Heard the learned advocate for both the
parties.
2. This is a insurer's appeal against the judgment
and award dated 26.07.2012 passed in MVC No.393 of
2010 on the file of learned District Judge and MACT,
Gadag (for short, 'the Tribunal').
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
4. The claimant is owner of the bus. It met with an
accident due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry
bearing registration No.KA-22/6395 belonging to
respondent No.1 and it was insured with respondent No.2.
Both the vehicle colluded on 16.07.2009 around 9:00 p.m.
on Gagad-Hubli road near Manakawad cross. As a result of
impact the bus belonging to the appellant/claimant was
damaged. The said bus was in the garage during repairs
for nearly 60 days causing loss of revenue to the claimant
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560
to an extent of Rs.4,14,000/- and expenses to repair the
said vehicle was Rs.1,41,065/- and total Rs.5,55,065/-
was claimed by the claimant as a damage to the vehicle.
5. The learned counsel for appellant contends that
looking to the damage stated in the mahazar, it can not
take 60 days to repair the same. The Tribunal has taken
60 days for calculating idle charges which is incorrect.
Even the amount awarded as damage for the repair of the
vehicle is also on higher side. Therefore prays to award
reasonable amount of compensation.
6. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant
produced a copy of the judgment passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional
Controller, NWKRTC Hubli Division, Hubli Vs. Devageri
Transport, and another in MFA No.22133/2009 C/w. MFA
No.22132/2009, disposed off on 29th June 2016. In the
aforesaid case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
relying upon an earlier judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in MFA No.22143/2009, decided on
10.01.2014, and interpreting Section 72(2) of the Motor
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560
Vehicles Act and Rule 69-A of the Motor Vehicle Rules,
1989, held that the owner of the transport bus is not
entitled for idling charges. In view of the same, the award
of compensation by the Tribunal in respect of idling
charges for 60 days is not permissible. The Corporation is
entitled to compensation only for the damage to the
vehicle i.e., Rs.1,41,065/-.
7. Learned counsel for the claimant-Corporation
vehemently contends that the Tribunal has properly
appreciated the case and awarded the compensation. The
claimants claimed Rs.4,14,000/- for keeping the said bus
idle during the period of repair. But Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.1.80,000/- taking the period of repair as 60
days and calculated the loss of income at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- per day. However Corporation has not filed any
appeal against the award. The amount of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is justifiable and it does not call
for any interference by this Court.
8. Facts of the accident and damage to the bus
belonging to the claimant etc., are not in dispute. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560
claimants have not produced survey report regarding
assessment of damage, however they have produced the
job card that shows that Rs.1,41,065/- was total expenses
including the repair charges. Therefore the Tribunal rightly
assessed the repair charges in the impugned order, which
does not call for any interference.
9. The main grievance of the appellant is that for
repairing the said vehicle, 60 days time was not required.
Therefore awarding of the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-
as loss of revenue to the Corporation is incorrect.
10. Ex.P4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report
wherein damage to the vehicle are stated as under:
i. Front right side window corner pressed &
damaged.
ii. Right side body had fresh window works.
iii. Front both window side glasses broken.
iv. Front bumper pressed inwards on either
side.
v. Right side and left side windows top
glasses broken.
vi. Rear window side glass broken.
11. Looking to the said damage to the bus, it is
difficult to believe that 60 days time is required to repair
the bus. Undisputedly the buses belonging to the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560
Corporation are having stage carriage permit. As per
Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Corporation shall
maintain reserve vehicles. Hence even if the vehicle was in
the garage under repairs, it would not have affected
revenue of the Corporation and hence it is not entitled for
idling charges.
12. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
judgment dated 10.01.2014 passed in MFA
No.22143/2009 held as under:
"72. Grant of stage carriage permits.- (1)
Subject to the provisions of Section 71, a Regional
Transport Authority may, on an application made to
it under Section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in
accordance with the application or with such
modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such
a permit:
provided that no such permit shall be granted
in respect of any route or area not specified in the
application.
(2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it
decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant
the permit for a stage carriage of a specified
description and may, subject to any rules that may
be made under this Act, attach to the permit any
one or more of the following conditions, namely-
(i) to (xvi) - ΧΧΧΧ
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560
(xvii) The vehicles to be kept as reserve by the
holder of the permit to maintain the operation and
to provide for special occasions;
5. Rule 69 A of Karnataka Motor Vehicle, Rules
1989, reads as under:
69-A. Maintenance of reserve vehicles.-
The conditions regarding maintenance of
reserve vehicles specified in clause (xvii) of sub-
section (2) of Section 72 of the Act, shall be
incorporated in every permit granted to a person
and the maximum number of reserve vehicles to be
maintained with valid permits for such use shall be
as specified in the table below:
No. of Maximum number of reserve
permits vehicles maintained that can
be maintained
6. A perusal of the above provisions would
clearly indicate that when a stage carriage permit
has been issued to a vehicle the authorities would
incorporate the condition that permit holder will
have to have a spare vehicle or a reserve vehicle for
being plied in the route in the eventuality of the
vehicle issued with permit breaking down or being
stationed for repair or for whatsoever reason if said
vehicle is not plied."
Principle of law laid down in the above case is
applicable to the facts of the present case.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560
13. Relying on the above said judgment, Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 29.06.2016
rejected the claim of the Corporation to award idling
charges.
14. In view of the above, claimant-Corporation is
not entitled for idling charges and it is entitled for
repairing charges only. Accordingly this Court pass the
following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated
26.07.2012 passed in MVC No.393 of 2010
on the file of learned District Judge and
MACT, Gadag is modified.
iii. The claimants are entitled for compensation
of Rs.1,41,065/- as against Rs.3,21,065/-
awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization.
iv. Remaining portion of the order of the
Tribunal is not disturbed.
v. Whatever amount deposited by the appellant
shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
vi. Send back the TCR along with copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
KGK /CT-AN
