[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sheik Imtiyaz Pasha S/O. Sheik Ismail vs Shivanand S/O. Chikkahonnappa ... on 23 January, 2026
-1-
MFA No.102946 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102946 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SHEIK IMTIYAZ PASHA S/O SHEIK ISMAIL,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NO.25/2, 8TH B CROSS, G FLOOR,
VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ASHARANI H. MUNJI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVANAND S/O CHIKKAHONNAPPA SOMAPURA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H S K LAYOUT, DABASPET,
TQ: NELAMANGALA, DIST: BANGLORE-562111.
2. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.3/1, RUKMINO TOWERS, FLOTFARM ROAD,
SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH)
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
Digitally signed by
VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.01.27 16:48:08
28.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1333/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II
+0530
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 06.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
-2-
MFA No.102946 of 2017
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act') by
the claimant challenging by the Judgment and Award dated
28.01.2017 passed in MVC No.1333/2014 by the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur ('the
Tribunal' for short).
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to,
based on their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are as under:
It is the case of the appellant-claimant that on
26.11.2013, at about 1.30 p.m., the claimant and others
were traveling in a car bearing Reg.No.KA-30/MJ-2250 from
Bangalore to Mumbai. When they came near Makanur Cross
on NH-4, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-52/5859 drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed to the car and caused the accident. Due
to the accident, the front portion of the car got damaged.
The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the
M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,52,710/- towards
damages.
4. In response to court notice, respondent No.2-
Insurance company appeared before the Tribunal and filed
written statement denying the averments made in the claim
petition except that the offending lorry was insured for the
period of 28.02.2013 to 27.02.2014. The driver of the lorry
did not possess valid and effective driving licence. It is also
contended that the driver of the car has also contributed to
the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, framed issues. The petitioner examined as P.W.3
got marked common documents at Exs.P1 to Ex.P16. On
the other hand, respondent No.2-Insurance Company
examined one witness as R.W.1 and got marked documents
at Exs.R1 & R2. The Tribunal after assessing the oral and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part
and awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/- with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till
realization.
6. The appellant-claimant, aggrieved by the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed this
Miscellaneous First Appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant
submits that the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is against the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal has not properly considered the damages
caused to the car in right perspective while awarding
compensation. He submits that as per Ex.P4-IMV report, the
car has severally damaged. He also produced Ex.P14-
vehicle credit bill which discloses that appellant-claimant
require Rs.2,00,000/- towards repair charges of the car. He
submits that without examining the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal has awarded global compensation of
Rs.80,000/- which is on the lower side. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper,
and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on
these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
claimant and the learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurance Company.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on re-appreciation of the material on record, it is seen
that the appellant-claimant has produced Ex.P14-vehicle
credit bill. However, the appellant has not examined the
author of Ex.P14. The appellant has produced Ex.P4-IMV
report. As per the IMV report, the front bumper, bonnet,
radiator and front wind screen glass were damaged. The
IMV report did not disclose the inside damages. Nothing
prevented the appellant to conduct the survey to ascertain
the actual damages.
11. It is well established principle of law that when
special damage is claimed, each Rupee has to be accounted
for and proofs like any other claim. Mere production of
Exs.P4 and P14 perse was not proof of the claim. The
Tribunal after considering the entire material available on
record has awarded global compensation of Rs.80,000/-
which is just and proper, and do not call for any
interference by this court.
12. In view of the above discussion, this court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
MBS
CT:VP
