[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Divisional Controller, Nekrtc Koppal on 2 April, 2026
-1-
MFA No.101801 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101801 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR YALAMANCHALI COMPLEX,
HOTEL PRIYADARSHINI COMPOUND,
HOSPET POLICY NO.454700/31/2010/1433
VALID FROM 25/07/2009 TO 24/07/2010
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-29.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NEKRTC KOPPAL,
KOPPAL DIST. KOPPAL.
2 . SUBRAMANI S/O SONGODANA
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER CUM DRIVER OF
Digitally signed by
LORRY BEARNING TN-28/L-508 1,
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
R/O.3/117, CHINNAMANAICKANAPATTY,
Date: 2026.04.02 12:17:19
+0530
SUNGAKARNA PATTY (PO),
TQ: P. VELLUR, DIST: NAMAKAL TN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE SERVED TO R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2014 PASSED BY IN THE
COURT SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T KOPPAL MVC
NO.71/0013, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
MFA No.101801 OF 2014
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE
SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
16.03.2026, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
This is an appeal filed by the insurer of lorry bearing No.
TN-28-L-5081 praying to set aside the judgment and award
dated 21.04.2014 passed in MVC No.71/2013 by learned Senior
Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Koppal (hereinafter referred
as 'the Tribunal").
2. The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Koppal (in short,
"the Corporation') filed a petition in MVC No.71/2013 under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and
insurer of lorry bearing No.TN-28-L-5081, claiming
compensation for the loss suffered on account of damages to
their vehicle i.e., bus bearing No. KA-37-F-295, in a road traffic
accident, on the ground that the said accident occurred due to
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry in
question.
3. After contesting, the Tribunal allowed the claim
petition in part attributing negligence to the driver of the lorry
bearing No.TN-28-L-5081 and directed the owner and the
MFA No.101801 OF 2014
insurer of the offending vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.91,926/- to
the Corporation by way of damages along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurer
has maintained the present appeal.
4. Sri G.N. Raichur, learned Counsel for Insurer, relied
on a decision in North West Karnataka Transport
Corporation Vs Pushpaja and another (MFA
No.22143/2009 DD 10.01.2014) and vehemently submitted
that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding idling
charges in the case though the Corporation is a fleet owner
having spare buses. He further contended that even the
quantum of idling charges awarded by the Tribunal is without
any basis.
5. Per contra, Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned
Counsel for Corporation, relied on decisions in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs The Managing Director, KSRTC and
another (MFA No11605/2008 DD 14.06.2011 & MFA
No.9572/2010 DD 02.01.2013) and vigorously supported
the findings recorded by the Tribunal and contended that the
insurer has not made out any valid grounds to interfere with
the impugned judgment and award.
MFA No.101801 OF 2014
6. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.91,926/- to
the Corporation under the following heads:
Sl. Head Amount
No.
(in Rs.)
1. Material Costs 60,232.00
2. 4% of the overhead on material cost 2,409.00
3. Loss of revenue to the Corporation for 7 days 24,150.00
4. Painting charges 2,925.00
5. Stickering charges 500.00
6. Power charges 1,710.00
Total : 91,926.00
7. The case paper reveals that the Corporation had
claimed compensation for loss of stoppage of the bus for 75
days. However, the Tribunal considering nature of damages,
opined that the Corporation could have got the vehicle repaired
within 5 to 7 days, assessed loss of revenue for 7 days as
₹24,150/- at the rate of ₹3,450/- per day.
8. In North West Karnataka Transport
Corporation Vs Mrs. V.V.G.N. Prasad Gupta and Others
[NC:2023:KHC-D:14257] the co-ordinate bench of this Court
has held that -
'... Section 72 empowers power to the transport
authorities to put conditions as
MFA No.101801 OF 2014
enumerated in section 72 of the Act keeping in
view the interest of public while providing
transport services by the KSRTC/TBC as it is a
fundamental right provided by the
Constitution of India. When this being the legal
position, the object and reason for framing Rule
69-A is that according to the number of permit
being issued by the transport authorities,
number of reserve vehicles can be
maintained. Maintaining reserve vehicles is not
for revenue generation by the vehicles but to
provide hassle free transport service to the
public. Therefore, when this being
the legal position, if any bus of the KSRTC/TBC
meets with accident and operation of the said
bus is cancelled, but to assign reserve bus/spare
bus on the said schedule route,
hence in this regard there would not be any loss
of revenue to the KSRTC and TBC. But as above
stated earlier, the revenue generation by the
KSRTC/TBC is a route specific revenue but not
bus specific revenue. Hence, when it is
obligatory on the part of the KSRTC/TBC to
assign spare bus/reserve bus on the route in
case of a scheduled bus is damaged, there could
not be loss of revenue by not operating the
schedule route. Therefore, if a bus meets with
accident and got damaged and is kept in
the garage for repair, for that the KSRTC/TBC
are entitled for compensation on other heads as
per law, but not entitled for loss of revenue. ...".
9. In the light of above referred decision, this Court
holds that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation to
the Corporation under the head of "loss of revenue / idling
charges". In view of the same, it is held that the impugned
award is liable to be interfered with to the extent of disallowing
the compensation granted under the head of loss of revenue /
MFA No.101801 OF 2014
idling charges, and the point for consideration is answered
accordingly.
10. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following :
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated 21.04.2014 passed
in MVC No.71/2013 by learned Senior Civil Judge &
Additional MACT, Koppal is modified.
iii) The compensation of ₹24,150/- awarded by the
Tribunal to the Corporation under the head of loss
of revenue is set aside by maintaining the award
on all other heads.
iv) The amount in deposit in the appeal, if any, shall
be transmitted to the Tribunal, along with trial
court record, forthwith.
v) Excess amount in deposit, if any, shall be refunded
to the insurer.
vi) Draw an award accordingly.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
YAN
CT: CMU
