Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri Mohandes Raj Urs B on 24 June, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
M.F.A.No.6296/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
(PRESENTLY 6TH FLOOR), HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 002, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MOHANDES RAJ URS.B
S/O LATE BASAVARAJ URS, 65 YEARS
C/O 102, 15/16TH, 4TH CROSS
ANANTHAPPA LAYOUT, DORESANI PALYA
III PHASE, NEAR KALYANI MAGNUM
BANGALORE -560 078.
2. M/s. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS LTD.
NO.76/XXV, BIG BAZAAR ROAD
CHUNNMPUKURA, PALGHAT DISTRICT
MADURAI (T.N.) - 625 016. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.S.NAGANANDINI, ADV. FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.10.2010
PASSED IN MVC NO.4643/2009 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MEMBER, MACT AT
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST &
ETC.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company has filed this appeal to reduce compensation awarded to claimant for damage caused to his car bearing No.KA-09-F-9814.
2. I have heard Sri T.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for Insurance Company and Smt.S.Naganandini, learned counsel for claimant.
3. The learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that in the insurance policy obtained by claimant to cover the risk of his vehicle, he has declared value of his vehicle is Rs.2,30,000/-. As per survey report given by the Surveyor of appellant-Insurance Company, value of vehicle less salvage value would be Rs.1,53,000/-.
4. The learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards "Miscellaneous expenses", which is not 3 warranted while awarding compensation to third party property.
5. The learned counsel for Insurance Company, relying on judgment of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, reported in 1987 ACJ 926 (General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Saradamma), would submit that consequential loss in a claim for damages cannot be treated as damage to property.
6. The learned counsel for claimant would submit that claimant got his car repaired by spending a sum of Rs.2,67,000/-. The claimant had spent a sum of Rs.6,250/- to shift vehicle from place of accident to garage. The claimant had spent a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards alternate transportation charges. The above expenditure was a direct result of accident. It was neither consequential loss nor a remote loss.
7. The learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that claimant has not pleaded that he had spent a 4 sum of Rs.20,000/- towards alternate transportation charges when his car was under repair. During trial, claimant has not deposed the same. In the circumstances, Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards "transportation/miscellaneous charges".
8. The Insurance Company cannot bind claimant by evaluation made by its Surveyor, who was not examined before Tribunal. The Insurance Company cannot depend upon valuation declared by claimant with his insurer. After the accident, claimant had spent a sum of Rs.6,250/- to shift the car from place of accident to garage. This was not a loss which was unconnected with accident. The claimant had no option but to remove car from place of accident to garage for its repairs. Therefore, claimant had to spend a sum of Rs.6,250/- towards toeing charges. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation towards "toeing charges". As regarding expenditure incurred by claimant for alternate transportation charges, there is no pleading nor proof. 5
9. The law is fairly well settled that in a claim for damages, there must be a pleading and proof. In the circumstances, compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards "alternate transportation charges/miscellaneous expenses" cannot be sustained.
10. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned award is modified. Compensation of Rs.2,56,250/- awarded by Tribunal is reduced to Rs.2,36,250/-. The rest of the impugned award is confirmed. The amount deposited by Insurance Company shall be transferred to Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN