[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. Ashok Kumar V vs Smt. Meena S Alva on 31 January, 2026
-1-
MFA No.6119 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6119/2015(MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
MR. ASHOK KUMAR .V
S/O VASUDEV PANIKAR
AGED 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ASHOK BHAVAN,
MON COMPU POST, ALLEPPY DISTRICT
KERALA-688 502,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.4,
TYPE-III, KENDRIYA VIDYALA NO.1,
PANAMBUR, MANGALORE,
D.K. PIN-575 010.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY .G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MEENA S. ALVA,
C/O SREE MOOKAMBIKA GAS AGENCY,
HARADI, PUTTUR TALUK,
D.K. PIN-574 201.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OFFICE AT III FLOOR,
EMKAY'S SHALIMAR COMPLEX,
KANKANADY, MANGALORE,
D.K. PIN-575 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1-SERVED)
-2-
MFA No.6119 of 2015
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.03.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.707/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT II, D.K, MANGALORE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
20.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the
judgment and award dated 02.03.2015 passed in MVC
No.1892/2012 & 707/2013 on the file of the MACT II & I
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore. The
petitioner was filed for award of compensation in respect
of the accident caused to the Maruthi Car bearing
Reg.No.KL.07/V.7369 in the motor vehicle accident
occurred on 10.10.2012.
2. The manner of the accident as per PW1 is that on
10.10.2012 at about 4.10 p.m., when the petitioner was
driving Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KL.07/V.7369 along
with wife and travelling from Jeppinamogaru to Panambur
side, he was driving the said car slowly and carefully by
observing the traffic rules and regulations on the correct
side of the road, at 4.10 pm, when the said car reached at
Daddalkad on Mangalore-Udupi NH66, a lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA.21/A.6009 came in a rash and negligent
manner with high speed and dashed his car from behind
as a result accident occurred and his wife died.
3. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and he also
examined PW3 surveyor and marked the documents from
Exs.P1 to P27. Ex.P2 is the complaint given by Sowmya,
who was travelling in the car, at the time of the accident
and sitting on the rear seat. Ex.P3 is the accident report
and Ex.P4 is the post mortem report and Ex.P5 is the IMV
report.
4. It is submitted that when the lorry driver dashed
the car, the car went ahead 150 feet and toppled. He
stated that his car was seized by the police and then
released, then transported the car to the Car World
Kallapu Permannur Mangalore for repair and the surveyor
inspected the vehicle and prepared the report estimating
the repair charges for more than Rs.1,23,856/- and pre-
accident market value of the vehicle is Rs.65,000/-. As
the repair of vehicle is not economical, treated as total
loss and sold to the scrap for Rs.10,000/-. As such, he is
entitled for balance amount and the surveyor fees. PW3
inspected the vehicle and estimated the damage and
repair and issued his report under Ex.P17- Surveyor
report, Ex.P18 -Quotation, Ex.P19- fee receipt and Ex.P20
- Photographs. Ex.P21 is the CD.
5. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner has not
produced any document to show that he is the owner of
the car and he has not stated whether his car was in
shape and whether he made any claim from the Insurance
Company. As per the survey report, the vehicle was of
1999 model and it was used for 13 years. As such, it is
difficult to believe that pre-accident market value was
Rs.65,000/-. There is no validation from the Maruthi
authorized dealer. No satisfactory evidence to prove that
vehicle was treated as a scrap and sold to the scrap
vendor. As the registration certificate of vehicle is not
produced by PW1, he has no locus standi to claim
damages. He has not filed any document to show that
vehicle was standing in his name, as on the date of
accident. Thus he is not entitled for compensation.
Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an
appeal and mainly contended that the claim petition was
dismissed on the ground that appellant failed to prove
show the ownership of the vehicle. In the investigation of
the police, there is no finding that appellant is not the
owner of the car, or that he was driving the car without
license. The market value of the car, as on the date of
accident was Rs. 65,000/- and the estimated cost of the
repair for more than Rs.1,23,856/-, but he sold it as scrap
for Rs.10,000/-. Photographs are also produced. The
Tribunal ought to have awarded market value of the car
as Rs.65,000/- and survey charges as Rs.4,000 with
interest, but failed to do so.
7. The owner of the car also filed another case
claiming compensation for the death of his wife. When he
filed an application claiming damages for the car, it is for
him to prove that he is the owner of the vehicle. His
argument that in the investigation, there was no finding
that he is not the owner of the car and he was driving the
car without license cannot be accepted. Though PW2 is the
surveyor of the Insurance Company and he estimated the
cost of repairs as more than Rs.1,23,856/-, it is for PW1 to
prove that the car is in his name and he is the owner of
the vehicle as on the date of accident. He has not filed any
document to that effect, even in the appeal and he has not
filed any document to show that the car was insured and
whether he made any claim from the Insurance Company.
Hence, the Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects
and dismissed his application. This Court finds no reason
to interfere with the said order.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
AKV
CT:NR
