Karnataka High Court
Smt Gadigi Sanna Devamma @ Gadigi ... vs The Divisional Manager M/S United India ... on 14 December, 2010
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
» MACP-I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14°! DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 © - 7 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.SABHAHIT o MFA NO.295/2008 BETWEEN: SMT. GADIGI SANNA DEVAA! My A a@ GADIG! DEVAMMA W/O DODDA POMPANNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, , OWNER OF TRACTOR-TRAILER R/O KOLAGALLU.VWILALGE.,, BELLARY TAL UB AN str -_ _ APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.CHIDAL IANDA. ADV] AND: NOE CO. LTD, OPP. RADI SHIKA INDIA INSRE "BELLARY 582 102. . ., . RESPONDENTS : (BY. SRI MG. 3. GADAGOLI, ADV) oT HIS: "MPA IS PILED U? IOHER SECTION L7GEL) OF MY ACT AGAI NST THE. JUDGMENT D AWARD DATED 29,9 2007 PASSED IN MWC NO.26/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER. BELLARY. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION PONAQION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION, NG ON POR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ries POR LCIWENG JUDGMENT
This appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing with -- at 2 This appeal is filed by the claimeantin MVC No.26/2005 seeking for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judsment and award. passed py the MACT il, Bellary dated 29/09/2007>.
a. The appellant herein filed a claim petition under ot Section 166 of "th eo Motor' Vehicles "Act, i939 seeking pensation of Rs 50,600/- towards the de mages caused io tractor-trailer betonigit S to her iff a motor accident that occurred en 17.2.2004 ai about 7,00 p.m. on Kolagal road = within ; thé juriediction of Bellary Rural Police Station. [t is tie case of the petitioner that there was damage to the tractor-traver and the tractor-trailer was being driven slowly "and cautiously. However. as the driver lost control, the tractor-trailer turtled and tractor-trailer was damaged and compensation of Rs.t,50,000/- was claimed form the ve E :
respondent with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the accident to the date of payment from the respofient- insurance company which nas insured the tractor-trailer.
4. Respondents resisted the pedtion : con vending that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. "Phe owner was not holding valid driving licence-and therefore the respondent is not liable fe, pay compensation as vldimed int the petition. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions of the counsel appearirg for:the parties; framed issues, The petitioner exaarnec herself as P.W.E and she got marked deeuments As-per Exs Pol to°P-15. On behalf of the respondents. apart from .getting the document Ex.D-1 marked, no oral evicence whatsoever is adduced.
ae i Phe Tribunal. alter considering the contentions of the paities 'and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on. record, by judgment and award dated "29 /OO/ 2007, held that the tractor-trailer was damaged and the claiman tC bering the owner of the tractor-trailer is entitled "to compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest at 6% per % annum from the date of petition till the date of realiation and further held that the com pensation shall be deposited rey the insurance company within hwo mon ths fro" the date of judgment. Being agerieved by the saic judgment and award 7 the claimant has preferred this appéal. . 6, Admitted, no appeal has "heen 'filed by the insurance company a bed wherefore : the fi nditig of the Tribunal that the insu ranice : company "is viable to pay compensation has become final "and in this appeal, the claimant SeeKINg, for enhancement oF compensation, the only point that.ari se $ for de em in atio eis:
Whether "the. t on nperisa 'tion awarded of the Tribunal is con the'. lower side and calls for enhancement: and if so, what is the just and a re vsonable cotnpensation to which the appellant is enti led fo?
and lanswer the above point helding that the com nensation dow awarded. by the Tribunal is madequate and ¢ compe-sation 18 Hable io be enhanced and the fust and nable compensation to which the clanmant would be or entitled to is Rs 35,00Q/- with mferest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to the date of realization for the iollowing reasons:
7. Learned course! appear ng for the. appellant submitted that the claimant has produced cash bil iis as per Exs.P-9 to P-12 regarding purchase ol of spre pe rts and cost of repair, which would snow that the claim: ant had incurred expenditure of Ks.35,000/- tows ards. ere of the trailer which was daniaged becavise _6f thé "accident and the compensation awarded by the Trittinal towards the damage Frailer "isiadequate and calls for caused to. the. tra eTIVancemeny...
8. the learned" ~ counsel appearing for the wre Spo ride "nt submitted" that the quantum of compensation ave ard red. by the. Tribunal is just and reasonable and aceoriting te hie, a$ per the Motor Vehicles Accident Report-
Ex. P. 3. da Wage Causect fo the tractor-trailer comprises of "elfront right side bumper pressed inwards and (2) the trailer "de vor right side pressed inwards.
(8:
9, I have given careful consideration: "to" fhe contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties ane:
scrutinized the material on record... Tt is clear' frora the material on record that though the claimant has produced tne cash bills as per Exs.P-9/tope12, the claimant Aas rot been able to prove the same and having regard : the damage caused to the trailer as found from Motor vehicles Accident report I2x.P-3, it is clear that .répaurs and purchase of spare parts do not pertains to ihe repair of the damage caused to the tractor-trailer.in the aecidéeni. However, in that view of the matter no '@ssesament-as thereto can be made in respect régard to the damage of EX.P-G. ta P22." However hy caused to the trailer, ce iperisation of Rs.15.000/- awarded wby the Tribunal is ofthe lower side. Having reeard to the .contents.of Ex.P-3 and the fact that it took 30 days for aid vehicle, if would be just and reasonable te enhance the compensation towards the cost o has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during the period for which the vehicle was under re pair fora period for 30 days though the claimant claims that she was earning. Rs.1,000/- per day. There is nO material what soever is - produced by the petitioner to substantiate. hei clairn. : oh the absence of any material to preve 'her inicorhe, | would be just and reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- towards. loss of income during the repair of the vehicle as-soime.other vehicle had to be hired for agricultural purposes. Accordingly, the just and reasonable compensation to which the-claimant would be eniitled would oe. Rs.35.006/-) Accordingly, I answer the point for determination and pass.the following order: The appeal is allowed im part. The compensation the Tribune! is enhanced to Rs.35,000/- from Rs.15,000/-. with interest at 6% per annum from the date of fe of payment.
Sd/-
Pe ge Tein man i ae ae