Allowed

Smt Parvathi v. Mr.Kulur Iqbal Sheikh

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2022MFA/1258/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award to grant additional compensation of Rs.35,000 to the claimant for repair costs and vehicle idling charges, directing the insurer to pay with interest.

What did the court decide?

Awarded additional compensation of Rs.35,000; insurer directed to pay with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

Smt Parvathi Vs Mr.Kulur Iqbal Sheikh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.1258/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PARVATHI W/O. SRIDHAR KULAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT VISHWANATHA POOJARY COMPOUND, KRISHNA NAGARA KUNJATHBAIL, BONDEL MANGALURU TALUK-575 015, DAKSHINA KANNADA. … APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . MR.KULUR IQBAL SHEIKH S/O. ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.2-80/1 ZENETH MANZIL, PADUKODI VILLAGE, KULUR MANGALURU TALUK-575 013 DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶12

2 . IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BHARATH MOTORS PVT. LTD., MANGALURU, D.K.-575001 BY ITS MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(R1 IS SERVED;

¶14

SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

¶16

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1079/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶17

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶20

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 29.11.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.1079/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶21

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶22

The appellant/claimant is the owner of the vehicle and she had made the claim for damages. It is the contention of the claimant that the estimated cost of spare parts is Rs.89,347/- and the cost of the labour charges for repair was

¶23

¶24

Rs.39,600/-. Apart from that, spare parts purchased as per Exs.P8 to P10 is to the tune of Rs.20,829/- and total value of spare parts and repair is Rs.60,429/-. The appellant would also contend that Rs.42,000/- was paid by her insurer and the vehicle was also idle for a period of 45 days and the same is evident from the records, particularly, Ex.P7. Hence, she is entitled for the difference amount as well as the vehicle idling charges.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that though the estimation was made to the tune of Rs.89,347/-, the amount spent for repair as well as the spare parts is only Rs.60,429/- and taking note of the damages, there is no need of keeping the vehicle idle for 44 days.

¶26

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, admittedly, the bill was issued for Rs.39,600/- and spare parts of the vehicle as per Exs.P8 to P10 is Rs.20,829/-. Having considered the damages and the cost of spare parts which is only Rs.20,829/-, the vehicle was idle in the garage for a period of 45 days cannot be considered, considering the damages and the repair charges.

¶27

¶28

However, this Court can take note of the difference to the tune of Rs.18,000/- taking note of the amount of Rs.42,000/- given by the Company and the amount of Rs.60,429/- spent towards repair and spare parts. Though the appellant claim Rs.1,000/per day since, the vehicle was idle for a period of 45 days, the same cannot be considered. Hence, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.33,429/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.35,000/-.

¶29

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶30

following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶33

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 29.11.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.1079/2010 is modified granting additional compensation of Rs.35,000/- as against Rs.42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶34

¶35

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

¶36

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Smt Parvathi v. Mr.Kulur Iqbal Sheikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Parvathi v. Mr.Kulur Iqbal Sheikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagarathnamma Vs Hanumantha Reddy

Ravi Vs Rafeeq Pasha

Raghu Vs Sri Umesh

Sri. Nagaraj Vs Smt. Padmamma

Sri Prabhakar @ Udaya Vs Sri Sayeed Ahmed

Venkatesh Vs Ganapathi