Appeal by a taxi owner challenging compensation of Rs.94,000 for vehicle damage in a collision with a KSRTC bus. The court held the claimant produced no repair bills and found the award just and proper.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:9449 MFA No. 4548 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4548 OF 2014 (MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
MR. NIKIL.C.SUVARNA S/O MR.C.S.SUVARNA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT:1, N, 31-2661, SWARNA DEEPA, ASHOK NAGARA, MANGALORE-575 001. D.K. DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.SHASHIKANTH PRASAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
( NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:25.11.2015; BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.748/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL.MACT, UDUPI.
NC: 2024:KHC:9449 MFA No. 4548 of 2014
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.K.Shashikanth Prasad., learned counsel for the
appellant has appeared in person.
Though the appeal is listed today for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, it is heard finally.
NC: 2024:KHC:9449 MFA No. 4548 of 2014
replacement, loss of monthly income, mental agony and other expenses and accordingly filed claim petition.
In response to the notice, the first respondent filed objections and denied averment made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim. The second respondent insurer of the offending vehicle also filed the objections and denied the averment made in the claim petition and among other grounds, they prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:31.12.2013 allowed the claim petition in part and awarded Rs.94,000/- (Rupees Ninety Four Thousand only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the entire compensation amount. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this Appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Miscellaneous First Appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:9449 MFA No. 4548 of 2014
4. Counsel Sri.K.Shashikanth Prasad., submits that the
Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record and law.
Next, he submits that the grant of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) for vehicle damages is not correct and it has to be reconsidered.
A further submission is made that due to the accident major parts of the Car were damaged. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the Tribunal has not properly considered Ex.P.7 the Motor (Final) Survey Report.
Lastly, he contended that viewed from any angle the judgment of Tribunal is unsustainable in law. Hence, the appeal may be allowed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.
NC: 2024:KHC:9449 MFA No. 4548 of 2014
An attempt is made on behalf of claimant that due to the accident, the major parts of the Car were damaged and to repair the same, he incurred huge expenses. However, the claimant has not furnished the bills regarding the expenses that incurred towards the repair of the vehicle. Furthermore, the Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and rightly concluded that the claimant is entitled for Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) towards vehicle damages.
In my view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. I find no reasons to interfere with the Judgment and the appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's award of Rs.90,000 towards vehicle damages required interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Nikil.C.Suvarna
Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.
United India General Insurance Company Ltd.
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
