Karnataka High Court
Sri R.V. Shekar vs The Managing Director on 14 October, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.8168 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN
SRI R.V. SHEKAR
S/O SRI.R.V.VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VIDYANAGARA, 2ND CROSS,
RAMANAGARA TOWN,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: S. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE-THROUGH PH)
AND
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BMTC, K.H.ROAD,
SARIGE BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 027.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.40, LAKSHMI COMPLEX,
K.R.ROAD,
BANGALORE-2.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M.S. SRIRAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.10.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.470/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 23.10.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.470/2011 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagar, ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 14.07.2011 at about 5.10 p.m., the son of the petitioner was driving a car near Kempegowda Arch, Ring Road. At that time, BMTC bus came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. As a result of which, the car was damaged. In order to substantiate the claim, 3 the petitioner has been examined as PW-1 and marked the documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10. On the other hand, Assistant Manager of Insurance Company - respondent No.2 has got himself examined as RW-1 and also marked the documents as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. The Tribunal while considering both oral and documentary evidence and while considering Issue No.2, taken note of the fact that the Insurance Company has paid the amount of Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner and took the car to their custody and as per Ex.P9, repair estimation charges was made to the tune of Rs.2,67,116/-. The Tribunal has also taken note of the policy which was issued by respondent No.2 that for third party property damage, the Insurance Company is liable to pay only Rs.6,000/- and also taken note of the admission made by PW-1. In para 18 of the Judgment, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that as per evidence of RW-1, the petitioner has already received Rs.89,500/- and as per the policy-Ex.R-2, the amount to be paid for damages for third party property is only Rs.6,000/-.
4. The fact that the vehicle was surrendered as against Rs.89,500/- is not in dispute. No doubt, the estimation was made to the tune of Rs.2,67,116/- but no repair was made and 4 also to show that the vehicle was worth of Rs.2,67,116/-, no evidence is produced before the Court by the claimant. In the cross-examination, the petitioner has also categorically admitted that the vehicle is second hand and before surrendering the vehicle also, the claimant did not got valued the vehicle and accepted the amount fixed by the Insurance Company.
5. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to enhance the compensation.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Prs*