Mr Shashidhar G S Vs Appi Reddy C H

MR. SHASHIDHAR G. S. S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A NO.1741, 25^TH A CROSS, GOVINDARAJANAGAR PRASHANTHANAGAR MAIN ROAD KHBS COLONY, BANGALORE-560 079.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. HALESHA R G., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

APPI REDDY C H S/O VENKATAREDDY RAMALAYAM STREET NALLAPADU POST, GUNTUR (M) GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-522005.

¶16

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144 2^ND FLOOR, SUBHARAM COMPLEX M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(R1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) (BY SRI.JANARDHAN REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27829 MFA No. 1080 of 2016

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6606/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM & 23^RD ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the claimant against judgment and award dated 28^th September 2015, passed by the XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J & Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.6606/2013.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that the claimant

¶28

was the RC Owner of the Scorpio car bearing Registration No.KA-02-MA-3114. On 28.11.2013, at about 1.00 a.m., the driver of the said car was driving the claimant's car on

¶29

B.M. road, (NH 48) opposite, Samudaya Bhavana, Ballupete Belagodu Hobli, Sakaleshpura, the driver of the

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:27829 MFA No. 1080 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

lorry bearing Registration No.AP-07-TU 3519, drove the

¶34

same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant's Scorpio car. As a result, the said vehicle was badly damaged. The claimant had spent more than Rs.2,95,000/- towards repair charges and he lost income of Rs.50,000/- i.e., Rs.25,000/- each per month. For these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-.

¶35

Respondent No.1 is owner and Respondent No.2

¶36

is Insurer of the offending lorry. Respondent No.2 has denied the contentions of the claimant and also denied his liability to pay the compensation. Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry remained exparte .

¶37

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues.

¶38

The claimant to prove his case, examined 3 witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and marked 22 documents as Exs.P1 to P22. Respondent No.2 examined its Surveyor as RW.1 and marked Ex.R1.

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:27829 MFA No. 1080 of 2016

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

After hearing both the parties and appreciating

¶43

the evidence available on record, the Tribunal by impugned judgment, awarded a compensation in a sum of Rs.1,59,619/-.

¶44

I have heard the arguments.

¶45

The only dispute in the present appeal is

¶46

regarding non-awarding of labour charges to repair the vehicle, amounting to Rs.1,59,619.11, as mentioned in Ex.P11 and Ex.P22.

¶47

The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is tenable. The Invoices i.e. Ex.P11 as well as Ex.P22 are one and the same and Ex.P11 is having two column. First column is, total amount of spare parts, i.e., Rs.1,59,619.11 and next column is labour charges of Rs.1,14,509/- and the total amount of the bill was Rs.2,74,129/-. The claimant has also produced a Certificate at Ex.P16 given by the Insurance Company, wherein the damaged vehicle was insured, stating that no claim was made in respect of the said vehicle between 05.08.2013 to 04.08.2014. Therefore, claimant was

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27829 MFA No. 1080 of 2016

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

entitled for the entire amount of expenses as mentioned in

¶51

Ex.P11. In addition to the said amount, the claimant is also entitled for Rs.37,000/- as per Ex.P21. The said vehicle was a private vehicle. Therefore, the question of loss of income may not arise. However, the said vehicle was in the garage for repair for about two months. During

¶52

the said period, claimant might have hired a taxi for convenience and spent for the same. This fact needs to be

¶53

taken into consideration, while assessing compensation.

¶54

Accordingly the claimant is entitled to the

¶55

following amount of compensation:

¶56

Sl.No	Heads	Amount
1.	Total amount of spare parts, i.e., Rs.1,59,619.11 and Labour charges of Rs.1,14,509/- as per Ex.P11 and Ex.22 (Rs.2,74,129/-)	Rs.2,74,129/-
2.	Additional amount as per Ex.P21	Rs.37,000/-
3.	Conveyance charges	Rs.20,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,31,129/-

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:27829 MFA No. 1080 of 2016

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

The claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,71,510/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till its realisation. Accordingly, I pass following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶63

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 28^th September 2015, passed by the XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J & Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No. 6606/2013, is modified;

¶64

(a) Claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,71,510/with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till its realization.

¶65

iii. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award.

¶66

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:27829 MFA No. 1080 of 2016

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

iv. The enhanced amount of compensation is meager and it was spent to repair the vehicle. Therefore, the entire amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimant on due

¶69

identification.

¶70

v. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to trial Court.

¶71

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶72

DL

Mr Shashidhar G S v. Appi Reddy C H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Shashidhar G S v. Appi Reddy C H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K. Nagaraj Vs Venkatesh

Range Gowda Vs Venkatesh

Sri Siddappa H S Vs Sri Babu Suresh D

Santhosh @ Santhosh Vs Manjunatha

Smt Jayalaxmi Vs Mr Anjanappa

Sri. G. Gujjaraiah Vs Sri. Rajiv Chowdary