United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Dayananda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Dayananda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; Tribunal award modified and compensation reduced from Rs.8,05,633/- to Rs.3,00,000/- as global compensation carrying interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization; out of the 50% already deposited, Rs.3,00,000/- with interest to be released to the claimant on proper identification and excess refunded to the insurer; if not deposited, reduced compensation with interest to be deposited within 6 weeks; statutory deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal; trial records to be remitted; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs.8,05,633/-, more than the expenditure incurred on construction of the compound wall per Ex.P.31, in the presence of the materials placed by the claimant himself.

Court's answer

The point for consideration is answered 'Partly in the Affirmative' - the Tribunal was only partly justified in its quantum award.

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.5,05,633/- towards damage to the compound wall and vehicle without supporting evidence; none of the authors of the bills (including Ex.P.31) for debris shifting or construction was examined, and mere non-leading of evidence by the appellant did not justify the quantum.

Key takeaways

The Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony: the person examined for the claimant was a GPA holder who was not aware of the incident, and there was no material on record showing the mental agony actually undergone.ratio¶59
Taking into account the 2014 accident year and prevailing cost of construction and materials, a global compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for reconstruction including shifting of debris and other incidental charges meets the ends of justice.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quantum-only insurance appeal under S.173(1) MV Act. The High Court of Karnataka (T.M.Nadaf, J.) held the Tribunal unjustified in awarding Rs.5,05,633/- for damage to the compound wall, gate, steps, railings and vehicle without supporting evidence: none of the authors of the bills (Ex.P.31) was examined and the sole witness for the claimant was a GPA holder unaware of the 2014 incident. The further Rs.3,00,000/- awarded for mental agony was deleted for want of any material proof, the claimant's claim of hiring another vehicle being equally unsubstantiated. Compensation was reduced from Rs.8,05,633/- to Rs.3,00,000/- as global compensation for reconstruction including shifting of debris and incidental charges, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Vehicle damage of Rs.82,799/- stood satisfied (Rs.47,000/- reimbursed under OD claim, balance paid by the insurer). Appeal allowed in part; compensation shall be neither a bonanza nor a pittance.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42461 MFA No. 4368 of 2017

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4368 OF 2017 (MV-DM)

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., YESHWANTHPURA BRANCH, BANGALORE, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18, 5^TH & 6^TH FLOORS, KRUSHI BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DAYANANDA,

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.769/17 SKANDA, 1^ST CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 086.

M RAMAKRISHNA, S/O MUNIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PROPRIETOR M.S.SHAMBHAVI ENTERPRISES, NO.192, CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE, BANGALORE - 560 022.

…RESPONDENTS

(R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.05.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42461 MFA No. 4368 of 2017

HC-KAR

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.302/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH-5) AT BENGALURU, EXAMINE THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the Insurance Company calling in question the judgment and award dated 21.03.2017 in MVC No.302/2015 passed by the Court of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru, allowing the claim petition in-part granting compensation of Rs.8,05,633/with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization for damage caused to the Maximo Tempo Vehicle bearing No.KA-02-AC-0048 and damaged

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42461 MFA No. 4368 of 2017

HC-KAR

to the compound wall, railings, gate and steps. This appeal is only on the ground of quantum.

Heard Sri.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company. Though notice is served on respondent No.1 on 28.06.2017, has not chosen to represent and remained unrepresented. Notice to respondent No.2 was dispensed with vide order dated 22.05.2023.

The date of accident, involvement of vehicle,

damaged caused to the vehicle as well as compound wall, railings and gate are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to exorbitant compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Sri.Janardhan Reddy, with all vehemence submits that as per police complaint i.e., Ex.P.6, the claimant lodged complaint with Rajajinagar Traffic Police reporting that the offending vehicle dashed against the Maximo goods vehicle parked in front of the gate of his house and

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42461 MFA No. 4368 of 2017

HC-KAR

thereby, caused damage to the compound, gate, steps as well as iron railings to the steps so also caused damaged to the beam of the house and claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- as damages including pain and agony. As could be seen from the photographs produced, the damage was only to the compound wall, railings as well as one step visible in the photograph. As per Ex.P.31 - bill issued by Shinde Holdings Private Limited, the description shows for which repairs undertaken was laying of foundation of compound wall, construction of column for compound wall, construction of compound wall, plastering of columns and compound wall both sides, painting of compound wall and fixing and painting of gate. In all, the amount incurred was Rs.2,88,462/- along with VAT the sum comes to Rs.3,00,000/-. Insofar as vehicle is concerned, damage is estimated at Rs.82,799/- out of which Rs.47,000/- has been reimbursed under OD claim by the M/s Future General India Insurance Company, the insurer of the vehicle belonging to the claimant. So far as

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42461 MFA No. 4368 of 2017

HC-KAR

balance amount is concerned, the said amount has been paid by the appellant - Insurance Company. However, the Tribunal without there being any record quantified the damages especially in page No.7 including the expenses incurred for construction of wall and other repairs as per Ex.P.31 at Rs.5,05,633/- and awarded another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the mental agony. In all, awarded Rs.8,05,633/-, which is exorbitant and against the materials on record. The same requires reconsideration. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant,

perused the entire appeal papers along with trial Court records.

The only point that would arise for consideration

before this Court is as under:-

Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs.8,05,633/more than the expenditure incurred to the construction of the

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42461 MFA No. 4368 of 2017

HC-KAR

compound wall as per Ex.P.31 in the presence of the materials placed by the claimant himself ?

My answer to the above point for consideration is

‘Partly in the Affirmative’ for the following reasons:-

There is no dispute regarding the damage caused to the vehicle quantified at Rs.82,799/- and same has been satisfied by the appellant - Insurance Company. Merely because the appellant has not lead the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,05,633/- without there being any material on record to substantiate that such huge expenditure has been incurred. None of the authors of the bills produced either towards shifting debris or construction have been examined. The Tribunal has quantified the amount spent for construction of compound wall and others as per Ex.P.31 including reconstruction of entire damage cost at Rs.3,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal has quantified amount of Rs.5,05,633/- in the absence of any materials placed before it. The vouchers alleged to have been issued for shifting debris not been

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42461 MFA No. 4368 of 2017

HC-KAR

substantiated by examining the author. It is trite in a claim petition seeking for compensation either for injury or damages, neither shall result in a bonanza nor a pittance. In this case on hand, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,05,633/- towards damages caused to both compound wall and the vehicle in the absence of supporting evidence in terms of law. That apart in the absence of any material to substantiate the claim, the Tribunal has erred in awarding another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony along with Rs.5,05,633/- totally Rs.8,05,633/towards damages caused to both compound wall and vehicle.

Though the amount awarded under the head ‘expenses incurred for reconstruction of damage’ to an extent of Rs.3,00,000/- in the absence of the author being examined, this Court is of the considered opinion that after perusing the photographs produced at Exs.P.10 to 15 which visibly shows that there is damage caused to the compound wall, gate, to some steps and railings. The

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42461 MFA No. 4368 of 2017

HC-KAR

accident was of the year 2014. Taking into consideration the cost of construction and materials. This Court is of the opinion that if a global compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded for reconstruction including shifting of debris and other incidental charges, would meet ends of justice.

The person, who has been examined on behalf of the claimant was GPA holder. He was not aware of incident and he cannot be in a position to say the mental agony which the Tribunal has considered for awarding Rs.3,00,000/-, in the absence of any material proof to that effect as there is nothing placed on record to show what mental agony actually undergone by the claimant to claim such an exorbitant compensation.

The claimant has claimed exorbitant compensation on the premise that he has to hire other vehicle for his business. In this regard neither any person has been examined nor any document to that effect produced. Even the other documents produced in absence of author being examined are not substantiated in terms

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:42461 MFA No. 4368 of 2017

HC-KAR

of law to award any compensation. The Tribunal missed this important aspect of the matter and erred in awarding an exorbitant total compensation of Rs.8,05,633/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

In view of the discussions above, the claimant - respondent is entitled for a global compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- only for the reconstruction along with other incidental charges including removing debris and others. So far as damage to the vehicle, there is no dispute in view of findings of the Tribunal that, Rs.47,000/- has been reimbursed under OD claim and rest of the amount has been paid by the appellant - Insurance Company (As per paragraph No.10 of the Tribunal’s order).

For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the

following:-

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in-part.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:42461 MFA No. 4368 of 2017

HC-KAR

ii) The judgment and award dated 21.03.2017 in MVC.No.302/2015, on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-5), is hereby modified and compensation awarded is reduced from Rs.8,05,633/- to Rs.3,00,000/- as global compensation which shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

iii) Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that he has already deposited 50% of the award amount before the concerned Tribunal. If that be so, out of the same, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum be calculated and released in favour of the claimant – respondent on proper identification. The excess amount if any, be refunded in favour of the appellant - Insurance Company.

iv) In any event if the amount is not deposited the reduced compensation along with interest stated supra shall be deposited by

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42461 MFA No. 4368 of 2017

HC-KAR

the Insurer within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

v) The amount by way of statutory deposit before this Court be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.

vi) Registry is directed to remit the entire trial Court records along with copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith without giving any room for delay.

vii) No order as to costs.

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

MH/-

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15