Partly allowed

Mr Abdul Manan Saheb v. Mr Ashok Sapalya

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2024MFA/3593/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant sought enhancement of compensation for a Tata Innova rendered a complete loss in an accident. Based on the surveyor's valuation of Rs.7,00,000 and salvage sale of Rs.2,25,000, the court awarded Rs.4,75,000 total, enhancing the Tribunal's award by Rs.3,25,000 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.3,25,000 with 6% p.a. interest from date of petition till realisation, in addition to Tribunal's award.

Mr Abdul Manan Saheb Vs Mr Ashok Sapalya — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:2756 MFA No. 3593 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3593 OF 2019 (MV-DM)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR. ABDUL MANAN SAHEB S/O ABDUL RASEED SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT PA-1-12 MC, H NO.179, VAZIR BUILDING, ABRAHIM RAHIMUTTULLA ROAD, BHENDI BAZAAR, MUMBAI – 400009.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

MR. ASHOK SAPALYA S/O SUNDARA SAPALYA, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT AJJI BAKYER HOUSE, SIDDAKATTE POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D K DISTRICT 574219.

¶11

Digitally signed by RAMYA D

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BEAUTY PLAZA, II FLOOR, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALURU CITY, D K DISTRICT- 575001 REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. KUMAR M.D., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M. S. SRIRAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.174/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MANGALURU D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:2756 MFA No. 3593 of 2019

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking

¶22

enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT and Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. by judgment and

¶23

award dated 28.12.2018 passed in MVC No.174/2016.

¶24

The factum of accident, Innova car is damaged

¶25

and insurance coverage, are not in dispute.

¶26

Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials on record.

¶27

In the present case, Tata Innova car of 2007

¶28

model was damaged in the accident that occurred on 05.06.2015. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- only along with 6% p.a. interest from the date of petition till realisation.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

¶30

that Innova car of 2007 year model was damaged in the

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:2756 MFA No. 3593 of 2019

¶32

accident that occurred on 05.06.2015, then, what would have been the value of Innova car in the year 2015, the claimant is entitled for the same amount for reasons that in the accident Innova car became completely scrap. Therefore, by placing the reliance on Ex.P-3 - survey report and evidence of PW2 – Surveryor, he has deposed that the total value of Innova car was Rs.7,00,000/- and if in the year 2015 if the subject car was sold, then the car would have fetched Rs.7,00,000/- and as such prays for grant of compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- deducting the amount the claimant has got by selling said vehicle and what is already granted by the Tribunal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has

¶34

justified the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶35

It is not disputed that Tata Innova car was

¶36

manufactured in the year 2007 and said car is completely damaged in the accident occurred on 05.06.2015, therefore, as on the date of the accident the car was 8 years old. Ex.P-8 is the IMV report and Ex.P-3 is the

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:2756 MFA No. 3593 of 2019

¶38

survey report, which shows the extensive damage caused to the car. Due to the accident, the car has become scrap and unworkable for getting repaired. Ex.P-3 is the survey report submitted by PW2 - Surveyor. The surveyor PW2 in support of his survey report - Ex.P-3 has stated that the market value of vehicle was around Rs.7,00,000/-, whereas the adequate cost of retrival/repair of the vehicle exceeds 75% of the market value if repair order is made. Hence, it is not feasible to get repair of the vehicle. Therefore, it is better to consider the above claim of ‘TOTAL LOSS OF NET OF SALVAGE LOSS BASIS’. This fact is not disputed by the respondent’s side also.

¶39

Without getting repaired when the Innova car

¶40

became scrap, the said vehicle was sold as scrap for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, this is admitted by the claimant. When the market value of the car in the year 2015 is Rs.7,00,000/and the vehicle has got completely damaged, is not in a repairable condition and not feasible to get it repaired, then for the entire value of the vehicle,

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2756 MFA No. 3593 of 2019

¶42

compensation is to be granted to the claimant. PW2 - Surveyor in the evidence has stated that total market value of the vehicle in Mangalore is Rs.7,00,000/- and since the claimant has received a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- by selling the said car as scrap, then the claimant is entitled for the balance value of the car, which comes to Rs.4,75,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- but The Tribunal erred in granting compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for still more compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rs.4,75,000/- - Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal) along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶43

For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The appeal is allowed in part . (ii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:2756 MFA No. 3593 of 2019

¶47

Rs.3,25,000/along with 6% p.a. interest from the date of petition till realisation, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

(iii) No order as to cost.

¶49

(iv) Draw the decree accordingly.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Mr Abdul Manan Saheb v. Mr Ashok Sapalya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Abdul Manan Saheb v. Mr Ashok Sapalya

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

Pradeep Kumar M S Vs Gowramma

Nagaraja Vs Arun Kumar S

M/S. Shanti Collection Vs Sri. Chandrakantharaju

M N Kantharaju Vs Renuka M S

Smt. Susheela Vs Sri.v.T.Babureddy

Sri Chandra Reddy @ Chandra Vs Chandrasekhar Karthi