Partly allowed¶45

Mohammed v. the Divisional Controller

MFA (MV-DM) – Own-damage claim by insured vehicle owner

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2025MFA/8581/2016

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), MFA No. 8581 of 2016 (MV-DM), decided 04.03.2025, Lalitha Kanneganti J: vehicle owner's appeal under S.173(1) MV Act seeking enhancement of own-damage compensation; Tribunal's collusion-with-surveyor finding held baseless; compensation enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.65,000/- with 6% interest; appeal partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.65,000/-, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization; the respondent insurance company to deposit the amount within eight weeks, on which the claimant may withdraw the entire amount without furnishing security; Trial Court records to be returned to the Tribunal; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶45

Mohammed Vs the Divisional Controller — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the vehicle owner ought to be enhanced. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Considering the damage to the vehicle, Ex.P22 (20 photographs of the damaged vehicle), the surrendered Registration Certificate, and the market value of Rs.65,000/- shown in the surveyor report, the Court deemed it appropriate to enhance the compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.65,000/-.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal's finding that the appellant colluded with the private surveyor and obtained a false report was without any basis, as no reasoning was given on what basis the Tribunal disbelieved the surveyor report.

¶42

Key takeaways

At this point of time, remanding the matter to the trial Court would not serve any purpose.ratio¶42
The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA (MV-DM) — Own-damage claim by insured vehicle owner — Enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.30,000/- after rejecting the claimant's surveyor report on the ground that he had colluded with the private surveyor to create a fake and false report. On appeal, the High Court found that the Tribunal recorded the collusion finding without any basis, there being no reasoning for disbelieving the surveyor report; remand at that distance of time would serve no purpose. Considering the damage to the vehicle, Ex.P22 (20 photographs), the surrendered Registration Certificate and the market value of Rs.65,000/- shown in the surveyor report (Ex.P21), the Court enhanced compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.65,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, to be deposited by the insurer within eight weeks and withdrawable without security. Appeal allowed-in-part.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9155 MFA No. 8581 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8581 OF 2016 (MV-DM)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMED

¶9

S/O FAKRUDDIN SAB AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.30, AGASARAKERE HARIHAR – 577 601 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT OWNER OF PICK UP VAN BEARING REG NO KA-17-A01814

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., DAVANAGERE DEPOT DAVANAGERE – 577 002.

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C. CONTROLLER DAVANAGERE DIVISION, K.H. ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶16

THE CHAIRMAN K.S.R.T.C., INTERNAL CONTROL SECURITY FUND, K.H. ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶17

THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.19/1, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS CHIKKANNA GARDEN, SHANKAR MUTT COMPOUND

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:9155 MFA No. 8581 of 2016

¶20

SHAN KARAPURAM BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶21

R.M.BIRADAR S /O MALLANA GOWDA K.S.R.T.C. BUS DRIVER BADGE NO.2725, RESIDENT OF HALAVAGALU HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 583 131.

¶22

THE MANAGER

¶23

SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE DAVANAGERE VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, 1^ST FLOOR, NO.85/2, AMS COMPLEX, OPP. NANDI PETROL BUNK NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE – 577 002.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 - R3 SRI.K.POORNABODHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4 V/O/D 10/10/2018 NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH SRI.B.V.SHIVANNA GWODA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶26

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.202/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:9155 MFA No. 8581 of 2016

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.202/2012 dated 20.09.2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, at Harihar, the appellant who is the owner of the vehicle is before this Court.

¶33

The appellant herein has filed the claim petition claiming damages of an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. It is the case of the appellant that as per the repair assessment report of the private surveyor, an amount of Rs.83,600/- is required to repair the damaged vehicle.

¶34

The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the appellant has colluded with the private surveyor and got created fake and false report to claim higher and exorbitant damages from the Insurance Company and it is further observed that whatever materials that are placed by the appellant are not reliable and further, the Insurance Company has not disputed about the damages caused to the Ape Goods Vehicle. As per Ex.R3 i.e., copy of the insurance policy, the policy pertaining to the vehicle was in force and valid at the

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:9155 MFA No. 8581 of 2016

¶37

given point of time and hence the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the appellant herein is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.30,000/-.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal without considering both oral and documentary evidence that is placed before the Tribunal had given a finding that the appellant had colluded with the surveyor and placed the report. He submits that the vehicle is completely damaged and it is not in a condition to use. He has surrendered the Registration Certificate. It is further submitted that he was eking out his livelihood by plying the said vehicle. All these aspects were not considered by the Tribunal.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 - Insurance Company which has insured the KSRTC Vehicle submits that the Tribunal had rightly granted compensation of an amount of Rs.30,000/- and there are no grounds seeking enhancement of the compensation. He submits that the Tribunal had rightly held that the report of the surveyor that is placed by the appellant is without any basis and in collusion with the surveyor.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9155 MFA No. 8581 of 2016

¶41

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The Insurance Company do not dispute the accident and the damage that is caused to the vehicle. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the amount that is claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. The appellant has produced 20 photographs of his damaged vehicle marked as Ex.P22 and also produced Ex.P21 i.e., the repair assessment report and as per the said report, the market value of the said vehicle as on the date the accident had taken place is an amount of Rs.65,000/-. But for repair of the same, the appellant has to incur an amount of Rs.83,600/-.

¶42

This Court has perused the order passed by the Tribunal and there is no reasoning given by the Court on what basis the Tribunal had disbelieved the surveyor report and the finding is recorded by the Court saying that such a report has been obtained by collusion between the appellant and the surveyor. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said reasoning given by the Tribunal is without any basis. When the order is passed on 20.09.2016, at this point of time, remanding the matter to the trial Court would not serve any purpose.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9155 MFA No. 8581 of 2016

¶44

Considering the fact that there is damage to the vehicle and looking at Ex.P22 - 20 photographs and he has already surrendered Registration Certificate and as per the surveyor report, the market value of the vehicle is shown as Rs.65,000/-, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation from an amount of Rs.30,000/- to an amount of Rs.65,000/-.

¶45

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶46

i. The compensation is enhanced from an amount of Rs.30,000/- to an amount of Rs.65,000/- .

¶47

ii. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶48

iii. The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶49

iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:9155 MFA No. 8581 of 2016

¶52