Dr Raghavendra L Vs Yathiraj Nayak

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1066/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:31279 MFA No. 6276 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Aggrieved by the order passed in MVC.No.1066/2019 dated 30.06.2023 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mandya, whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition, the appellant/claimant is before this Court.

¶27

The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.3,16,794/- for the damage sustained to his vehicle in the road traffic accident.

¶28

It is the case of the Insurance Company that the claimant has already received an amount of Rs.73,000/towards vehicle damage from the insurer of his vehicle. The claimant had produced Ex.P5 which is the letter issued by Elite Motors Pvt. Ltd. stating that an amount of Rs.1,56,794/- has been received from the petitioner towards repair of his car. Ex.P6 is the tax invoice, Exs.P7 and 8 are the vouchers, Ex.P9 is the bill towards the towing charges.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:31279 MFA No. 6276 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the

¶33

ground that the claimant had already received the claim amount towards vehicle damage from the insurance company of his vehicle based on the bill issued by Elite Motors Pvt. Ltd.. The Tribunal had observed that in the light of the law laid down in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sharmila Devadas and others arising out of MFA.No.7949/2003 C/W MFA.No.1466/2004 dated 11.08.2010 and D.I.Narayanaswamy and another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another arising out of MFA.No.8118/2003 dated 16.12.2005 , when the claimant has already received claim amount from the insurer of his vehicle, he cannot again seek compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, in view of the same, the Tribunal held that the claimant is not entitled for compensation.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that Exs.P6, P7 & 8 clearly shows that the amount is debited from his account and he has paid an amount of Rs.1,56,794/-. As he has already received an amount of Rs.73,000/-, the remaining amount has to be paid by the

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31279 MFA No. 6276 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Insurance company. The Tribunal without appreciating all these aspects and evidence on record had dismissed the petition by misplacing reliance on the judgments referred supra. It is submitted that when the claimant had spent huge amounts, he is entitled for recovery of the same.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for respondent

¶39

No.2/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly held that the claimant had not examined anyone in support of his case. It is submitted that in these cases of vehicle damage, the Insurance Company will appoint surveyor and if the surveyor report corresponds or correlates to what the petitioner is pleading, he is entitled for compensation of the damages from his insurer and from the opposite vehicle and based on

¶40

that, the Insurance Company would be paying the compensation. It is submitted that when the claimant had not examined the surveyor as well as the personnel from Elite Motors Pvt. Ltd. in support of the exhibits, the Tribunal had rightly dealt with and rightly dismissed the petition and there

¶41

are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31279 MFA No. 6276 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The claimant is relying on Exs.P5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to show that he has paid certain amounts and from his insurer he has received only an amount Rs.73,000/- and the remaining amounts have to be paid by the Insurance Company. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company is that the claimant has not examined the surveyor and no one from Elite Motors Pvt. Ltd. This Court feels that there is some force in the argument. The claimant ought to have examined the concerned. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded back to the Tribunal for giving an opportunity to both the parties.

¶45

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed and the order passed in MVC.No.1066/2019 dated 30.06.2023 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mandya, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

¶46

i. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence.

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:31279 MFA No. 6276 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

ii. Without further notice, the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 09.09.2025.

¶51

iii. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within a period of four months from 09.09.2025.

¶52

iv. The parties shall co-operate with the same.

¶53

v. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶54

vi. No Costs.

¶55

vii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶56

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶57

MEG

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Dr Raghavendra L v. Yathiraj Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Raghavendra L v. Yathiraj Nayak

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

Sri Ganesh M Vs Smt. Mangaladeepa @ Mahalakshmi

Shri Krashik Nk @ Krushi N. K. Vs Smt. Chintana C.S

Sri Amaresh Vs Smt. Suvarna

Sri. Ramaprasad R Vs Smt Divya S

H S Shivakumar (Vijay) Vs Kum. Monisha S

Sri Sridhar P S Vs Sri M v Narayanaswamy