[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Prashanat S/O Manohar Goudar vs Yallappa S/O Veerappa Palled on 16 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4104
MFA No. 102390 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102390 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
PRASHANAT S/O MANOHAR GOUDAR
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. RACHOTESHWAR NILAY SAPTAGIRI
BADAVANE, 3RD CROSS, GADDANAKERI,
TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PN HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. YALLAPPA S/O VEERAPPA PALLED
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1.A SHRIKANT S/O YALLAPPA PALLED
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR R/O. OIL MILL GADAG ROAD,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI RON, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
1.B SHRIDHAR S/O YALLAPPA PALLED
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OIL MILL GADAG ROAD,
RON, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
JUBBLI CIRCLE, OPP. KITTEL COLLEGE, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SS YALIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1A-R1B;
SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4104
MFA No. 102390 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.07.2013 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF MEMBER M.A.C.T.-II, BAGALKOT IN MVC NO.52/2012
BY AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 11.07.2013 passed
by Member, MACT-II, Bagalkot (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC
no.52/2012, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri PN Hosamane, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by claimant (owner of damaged
vehicle) against dismissal of claim petition. It was submitted that
on 13.07.2011 at about 9:15 p.m., 3 kilometers away from
Abbigeri village towards Ron, when Tata Sumo vehicle bearing
number KA-24/MA-5050 belonging to clamant was proceeding
towards Ron, driver of lorry no.KA-26/6339 drove it in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against Tata Sumo vehicle causing
accident. In accident, apart from vehicle sustaining damages,
one of inmates sustained injuries. Therefore, two claim petitions
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4104
HC-KAR
were filed; one by injured and other by owner of vehicle for
vehicle damages. They were clubbed.
3. On service of notice, wherein claim petition was
opposed on all counts, Tribunal framed issues and recorded
evidence. Claimants examined themselves and three others as
PWs1 to 5 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P15. On other hand,
driver of lorry was examined as RW1 and Exhibits R1 and R2
were got marked.
4. On consideration, Tribunal dismissed claim petition
for vehicle damages on ground that Exs.P11 and P14 relied upon
by claimant to substantiate extent of damages sustained by
vehicle were survey reports and estimation cost and not repair
bills and drawing adverse inference that claimant may have
received compensation towards vehicle damages from own
insurer. It was submitted said reason was not justified and
contrary to law and therefore, sought interference.
5. On other hand, Sri Rajashekhar S Arani, learned
counsel for respondent opposed appeal. It was submitted that for
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4104
HC-KAR
failure to establish damages and amount spent towards repair,
Tribunal was justified in dismissing claim petition.
6. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment
and award.
7. From above, it is seen that claimant is in appeal
challenging dismissal of claim petition. Therefore, only point that
would arise for consideration would be:
'Whether dismissal of claim petition is justified?'
8. Same is answered in 'affirmative' for following
reasons.
9. There is no dispute about involvement of two vehicles
there, namely Tata Sumo belonging to claimant and lorry insured
with respondent - insurer being involved in accident. There is
also no dispute about Tata Sumo sustaining damages and claim
petition being filed for compensation towards damages.
However, claimant merely produced estimation of repair charges
and survey report by surveyor of insurer. In case, repairs were
carried out as projected in estimate, there would be no
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4104
HC-KAR
impediment for claimant to have produced repair bills and
receipts. Failure to produce same would indicate lack of material
to establish damages. Simultaneously, it is not clarified whether
claimant's vehicle was duly insured and whether claimant had
submitted claim application for damages from own insurer or
otherwise. In absence, reasons assigned by Tribunal for
dismissal of claim petition would be justified. Moreso, as claimant
failed to produce any such record even before this Court.
Consequently, following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15
