Partly allowed

The Manager v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023MFA/8826/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed against liability award granting Rs.4.08 lakh compensation for bus damage and revenue loss. Court held that per Rule 69-A MV Rules,1989, route-wise reserve vehicles preclude revenue loss claims. Appeal allowed in part; compensation reduced to repair costs only.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs.4,08,800/- to Rs.63,771/- (repair charges only). Excess deposit ordered to be returned to insurer.

The Manager Vs the Divisional Controller — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44040 MFA No. 8826 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8826 OF 2017 (MV-DM)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

THE MANAGER SHRI RAM GIC LTD., S/5, II FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 80

¶6

NOW REP BY THE LEGAL MANAGER SRHIRAM GENERAL INS CO LTD 3^RD FLOOR, S AND S CORNER BUILDING OPP BOWRING AND LADY CURZON HOSPITAL, BENGALURU 01

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, MANGALURU DIVISION, MANGALURU ON BEHALF OF M D KSRTC, C.O., BENGALURU

¶12

HARISH KUMAR R S/O RAGHUNATH KULAI D.NO.6-26/30, OMSHREE NILAYA PERPUL, KOTTARA CHOWKI, MANGALURU - 571 605

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. S RAJASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 08.08.2023)

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44040 MFA No. 8826 of 2017

¶16

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.784/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & MACT, D.K., MANGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,08,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FORM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.784/2016 dated 21.09.2017 on the file of the VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge & MACT, Mangaluru (DK).

¶20

The claim petition was filed seeking

¶21

compensation of an amount of Rs.11,42,425/- by the KSRTC for the damages caused to the Bus. It is the case of the KSRTC that as the Bus was damaged in the accident dated 17.01.2015, where in the front windscreen glass broken, bumper damaged, right side body completely damaged, windscreen glass frame broken, 8 Nos. of

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44040 MFA No. 8826 of 2017

¶23

window glass broken and headlight damaged. The bus was removed from the accident spot and taken to the workshop. For the repairs they have incurred an amount of Rs.63,771/- which includes labour and material charges, the bus could not be on road from 17.01.2015 and there is an estimated loss of revenue of an amount of Rs.23,449/-

¶24

per day for 46 days which is coming to an amount of Rs.10,78,654/-. Hence claimed the compensation of an amount of Rs.11,42,425/-. The court below while awarding the damages had observed that PW-2 Parameshwar Nayak, Asst. Traffic Superintendent, had stated that the bus was not plying on the road for a period of 46 days because of idling for repair. According, to them, per day an amount of Rs.23,449/- revenue is lost for 46 days. The court below had observed that they have not produced the documents of previous months, income of the route No.11/12 to know the income from the said route. Damages to the Bus shows it does not require 46 days to repair the said Bus. However the court below had come to the conclusion that the revenue is Rs.15,000/-

¶25

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44040 MFA No. 8826 of 2017

¶26

per day. So as the bus kept idling for 23 days, the court below had granted an amount of Rs.3,45,000/-. Further repair charges had been claimed by them at an amount of Rs.63,771/-. Altogether a compensation of an amount of Rs.4,08,771/- , rounded off to Rs.4,08,800/- was granted by the Tribunal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the insurance company

¶28

submits that whenever a permit is given for plying the vehicle as per Rule 69-A of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 they need to maintain the spare vehicle. He submits that even as per the admission of PW-2 they were plying the reserved vehicle in the said route. If that is the case there cannot be any loss of revenue to the KSRTC. The court below without considering all these aspects and also the admission made by PW-2 had granted the compensation for the idle period an amount of Rs.3,45,000/- which is without any basis.

¶29

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44040 MFA No. 8826 of 2017

¶30

Learned counsel for the Respondent-KSRTC

¶31

submits that as the vehicle was damaged and kept idle, they could not generate any revenue from the said vehicle. As such the tribunal had rightly granted the compensation. He submits that it is admitted fact that the bus is kept idle for said duration and there is no illegality in granting the said amount.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶33

side, perused the entire material on record. In this case, KSRTC had claimed the damages for the repairs done to the said vehicle i.e an amount of Rs.63,771/-. Secondly, estimated loss of revenue at an amount of Rs.23,449/- for 46 days. As far as the first component is concerned, basing on evidence the court below had granted the amount spent for the repair to a tune of Rs.63,771/- and no interference is called for in that regard. The insurance company is aggrieved as far as the component of loss of revenue which is granted at Rs.3,45,000/-. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the insurance company

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44040 MFA No. 8826 of 2017

¶35

in the light of Rule 69-A of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and also in the light of admission made by PW-2 that in the particular route in which the damaged vehicle earlier was plying, they were plying reserved vehicle. In such a scenario, it cannot accepted that there is loss of revenue to the KSRTC. The court below without any basis had granted an amount of Rs.3,45,000/- which is not correct.

¶36

Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance

¶37

Company is Allowed-in-part by reducing the

¶38

compensation amount from an amount of Rs.4,08,800/-

¶39

to Rs.63,771/-.

¶40

i) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. If any excess amount is deposited, the Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the same.

¶41

ii) iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶42

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:44040 MFA No. 8826 of 2017

¶43

iii) No costs.

¶44

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 100

The Manager v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. the Divisional Controller

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

Mr Vemanarayana Vs the Managing Director

Vijayakumar B.R Vs B.G. Paramesh

Ananda. K Vs Narayana Murthy

Sri Jagadeesh D S Vs M/S V2 Care Facilities

Murthy G H Vs Smt Yasmin

Ramakrishna Vs Susheel Kumar