Partly allowed

Ravindra Shankar Kudachi v. Basavaraj Fakirappa Morabad

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023MFA/100594/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal challenges a motor vehicle accident award. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, granting an additional Rs. 40,000 globally and 6% interest, modifying the lower tribunal's compensation amount for car damages.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 40,000 globally along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

Ravindra Shankar Kudachi Vs Basavaraj Fakirappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11950 MFA No. 100594 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100594/2018 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAVINDRA SHANKAR KUDACHI, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:MEDICAL PRACTITIONER (BDS), R/O: HATTARGI – 591243, TAL:HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT. GEETHA K. M. @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

BASAVARAJ FAKIRAPPA MORABAD, AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:H.NO.121, JAMMIHAL, POST:DUMMAWAD, TAL:KALAGHATAGI – 581204, DIST:DHARWAD.

¶14

Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M

¶15

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., E8, EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR - 303 007, RAJASTHAN.

¶16

(BY SRI N.C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 – NOTICE SERVED.)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.11.2017, PASSED BY THE COURT OF IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, IN MVC NO.620/2016 AND ENHANCE THE DAMAGE AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY HOLDING THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11950 MFA No. 100594 of 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.11.2017, passed by the tribunal, in MVC No.620/2016, seeking enhancement of award of damages to the car.

¶23

Heard the arguments and perused the material

¶24

placed before the Court.

¶25

The factum of accident, damage to the vehicle and coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this case.

¶26

In the present case the accident is between

¶27

tempo and car. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards damages to the car. But the driver of car has contributed 50% of rashness and negligence. Therefore, awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimant. Ex.P.18 is the car repair assessment; Ex.P.9 is the vehicle report; Ex.P.20 is the survey report; Ex.P.21 are the photographs. All these documents show there is considerable damage to the car. Even though the repair

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11950 MFA No. 100594 of 2018

¶29

assessment is found to be on exaggerated side, virtually amounting becoming the car as a scrap, but the car was got repaired to become road worthy.

¶30

Considering the damage caused to the car and survey report, it is just and proper to award additional compensation of Rs.40,000/- globally along with interest

¶31

at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the tribunal. Therefore it is ordered that the claimant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.40,000/globally, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the tribunal towards damage of car.

¶32

Accordingly the appeal stands allowed in part

¶33

by modifying the judgment and award dated 08.11.2017, passed by the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi, in MVC No.620/2016, to the extent stated above.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11950 MFA No. 100594 of 2018

¶36

No order as to costs.

¶37

Draw award accordingly.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

MRK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40 CT-ASC

Ravindra Shankar Kudachi v. Basavaraj Fakirappa Morabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Shankar Kudachi v. Basavaraj Fakirappa Morabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Vagish Basangauda Patil

The Manager Vs Maruti M/O Renuka Madar

The Divisional Manager, Vs Chetankumar @ Annappa

Sri Raghavendra Venkatesh Burli Vs Mr Shekarayya Ningayya Tawargeri

Sri Raghavendra Venkatesh Burli Vs Mr Hanamantha Mulchand Garag

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri.Fakirappa Gangappa Yammi