The Divisional Manager, Vs North West Road Transport Corporation

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6233 MFA No. 20127 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20127 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KAMATI LINE, RAJADANDAGAVA (C.G), BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI, REPTED. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICER, SUJATA COMPLEX, P. B. ROAD, HUBLI-580029.

¶8

APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

NORTH WEST ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HUBLI, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, SRI. SANGAPPA S/O. NARAPPA, HUBLI DIVISION, R/O. HUBLI.

¶11

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶12

SRI. S. KARNAIL SINGH S/O. DILIP SINGH, AGE MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O. NO. 27, MICRO LAYOUT, WEST ARCADE ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE.

¶13

RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. M. M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

¶15

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.07.2011 IN M.V.C. NO. 615/2007 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HUBLI & ETC.

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6233 MFA No. 20127 of 2012

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

¶20

This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No. 615/2007 dated 26.07.2011 by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli.

¶21

Heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant-

¶22

insurer and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶23

The only question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the respondent is entitled for idling charges for 15 days at the rate of Rs.3,750/- per day which is awarded by the Tribunal.

¶24

The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in North West Karnataka Transport Corporation, Hubli Vs. Pushpaja W/o Suhas Prabhu and another in M.F.A. No. 22143/2009 dated 10.01.2014 held that as per Rule 69A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, at the time of granting permit to stage carriage buses to ply on

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6233 MFA No. 20127 of 2012

¶26

the routes other than the specified routes they have to keep some buses as reserve vehicles. In view of the said Rule, question of loss of income during idle period does not arise. Therefore the question of law is covered by the law laid down in the above said judgment of the Coordinate bench of this Court.

¶27

In this case also there was a collision between the

¶28

offending lorry and the bus belonging to the Corporation. The Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the lorry. The Corporation sought for compensation of repair charges and idle charges at the rate of Rs.3,750/- for 45 days. The Tribunal in its judgment at paragraph Nos.16 and 17 considered the said fact and held that 45 days mentioned in the pleadings are not supported by sufficient materials. On the contrary Ex.P.5 shows that only 13 days was required for repair of the vehicle. Accordingly, it awarded idling charges for 15 days at the rate of Rs.3,750/- per day which amounted to Rs.56,250/-.

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6233 MFA No. 20127 of 2012

¶30

In view of the above said Rule and law laid down by

¶31

the Co-ordinate bench, the respondent-claimant is not entitled for idling charges of Rs.56,250/- and it is entitled for repair charges of Rs.16,250/(Rs.72,500/Rs.56,250/-). Claimant is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realization.

¶32

Whatever amount deposited shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Any amount deposited in excess of the award by the appellant, the same shall be refunded to the appellant on due acknowledgement.

¶33

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶34

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶35

bvv /ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

The Divisional Manager, v. North West Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, v. North West Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager Vs Sri Anand S/O Nagappa Muragod

Chinnur Channaveerappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Siddappa S/O Tammanna Kiranage @ Naik Vs Harichandra Bhimu Dhang

Maxworth Realty India Ltd. Vs Mr Poojar Mahadevagouda

Basappa Mallappa Kotyal Vs Ganapati S/O Irappa Mudalalgi

Basappa Mallappa Kotyal Vs Somalinga S/O Basappa Doddimani