Partly allowed

K. Subrahmanya Hegde S/O Subba Hegde v. Irappa Maddiyavar S/O Mallikarjun

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2022MFA/22575/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal filed by a vehicle owner regarding compensation for damages from a motor accident. Setting aside the MACT's dismissal based on evidence deficits, the Court awarded Rs. 20,000 in compensation and 6% interest based on photographic evidence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 20,000 awarded along with 6% interest per annum from date of petition.

K. Subrahmanya Hegde S/O Subba Hegde Vs Irappa Maddiyavar… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 22575 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22575 OF 2010 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K. SUBRAHMANYA HEGDE S/O SUBBA HEGDE AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O PRABATH NAGAR TAL. HONNAVAR, DIST. KARWAR

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. NARAYAN V YAJI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

IRAPPA MADDIYAVAR S/O MALLIKARJUN AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O COURT ROAD, POST. KALGHATGI, TAL. KALGHATGI DIST. DHARWAD

¶14

THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶15

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CTS NO. 472/474, KALBURGI SQUARE DESAI CIRCLE, DESHPANDE NAGAR HUBLI DIST. DHARWAD

¶16

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD Date: 2022.07.21 10:42:36 +0530

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R2) (R1-SERVED)

¶19

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2010 PASSED BY ADDL. MACT, HONNAVAR IN MVC NO.162/2008 AND TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.

¶21

¶22

MFA No. 22575 of 2010

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition

¶25

seeking compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle Maruti Omni bearing registration No.KA-47/M-125, under judgment and award dated 19.04.2010 in MVC No.162/2008 by learned Member, Addl. MACT, Honnavar (for short, ‘MACT’), this appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle.

¶26

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.06.2008, offending Truck bearing registration No.KA-25/B-3682 was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed near Gungunkeri, and on account of the same, it dashed to one Scooter from behind and thereafter, dashed to Maruti Omni vehicle of the claimant causing extensive damages to the same.

¶27

3. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company which filed its statement of objections and owner of the offending lorry remained exparte.

¶28

¶29

MFA No. 22575 of 2010

¶30

4. During trial, the claimant examined himself as

¶31

PW1 and he examined one Surveyor as PW3 and Exs.P1 to P194 were marked. The respondents did not examine any witness nor marked any document.

¶32

5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the records, the learned MACT dismissed the claim petition.

¶33

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted before me that the learned MACT was in error in dismissing the claim petition merely on account of the fact that no acceptable evidence was produced before it to prove the actual damages caused to the vehicle Maruti Omni in question. He submitted that the photographs were produced at Exs.P5 to P11 and also Ex.P29-Spot Panchanama. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned award of the learned MACT is required to be set-aside and compensation is required to be awarded to the claimant.

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 22575 of 2010

¶36

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company, per contra, contended that after appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned MACT had dismissed the claim petition and there is no error in such judgment and therefore, appeal is required to be dismissed.

¶37

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides and I have perused the records carefully.

¶38

9. It is no doubt true that the claimant has not produced IMV report to show that the damage was caused to the vehicle Maruti Omni in question. Even Ex.P1-Survey report was not prepared by PW3 for assessing loss caused to the vehicle in the presence of the representatives of the Insurance Company after notice to them. However, it was not proper on the part of the learned MACT to have dismissed the claim petition completely. A perusal of the charge sheet supports the case of the claimant that the

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 22575 of 2010

¶41

offending Truck had hit Maruti Omni vehicle in question and some damages had been caused to the said vehicle. Photographs at Ex.P5 to P11 also demonstrate the same.

¶42

It is therefore inevitable that the claimant would have incurred certain expenses for repairing the said Omni Vehicle. After having appreciated the photographs at Ex.P5 to P11 and also Ex.P29-Spot Panchanama, I am of the view that the claimant would have spent at least a sum of Rs.20,000/- during the year 2008 to restore the said Maruti Omni Vehicle to its original condition. This assessment of damages has been made by taking a reasonable view of the matter and also keeping in view the actual damages caused to the said vehicle. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards damages caused to Maruti Omni vehicle in question. The said compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. The respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the said compensation amount

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 22575 of 2010

¶45

along with interest before the learned MACT within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Transmit the records to the learned MACT forthwith.

¶46

10. The appeal is partly allowed to the above

¶47

extent.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

JTR

K. Subrahmanya Hegde S/O Subba Hegde v. Irappa Maddiyavar S/O Mallikarjun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Subrahmanya Hegde S/O Subba Hegde v. Irappa Maddiyavar S/O Mallikarjun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonam Pandey Vs the Registrar

Shri Shafi S/O. Ibrahim Sab Vs Shri K M Marulsiddayya S/O. Basayya

The Divisional Manager Vs Shri. Shafi S/O Ibrahim Sab

Shrinivas S/O Gaopalrao Vs Shidramappa S/O Virappa, Kadlimatti

Bapuji Vidya Samsthe (Regd) Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs Sri. Ravindra S/O Panduranga Ankolekar