Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Odanadi Seva Samsthe on 28 February, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4240/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office, Unity Building,
Mission Road, Bengaluru-560 027.
Rep. by New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru, by its Manager. ...Appellant
(By Sri.R.Jai Prakash, Adv.,- Absent)
AND:
1. Odanadi Seva Samsthe,
No.15/2B, SRS Colony,
Otagahalli, Belavadi,
Mysuru-570 001.
(Rep. by President).
2. Sri.Lingappaji.B, S/o. Beluraiah,
Aged about 61 years,
R/at No.4384, 14th Main,
A-Block, Subramanyanagar,
Bengaluru-560 021. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Srinivasa.D.G., Adv., for R1;
Sri.K.T.Gurudeva Prasad, Adv., for R2)
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated: 27.01.2015
passed in MVC No.3332/2012 on the file of the XXIII
Additional Small Cause Judge, & XXI ACMM, MACT,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, awarding
compensation of Rs.1,97,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a
from the date of petition till deposit.
This MFA coming on for Hearing, this day, the
court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri K.T. Guruprasad learned counsel for respondent No.2. There is no representation for the appellant despite giving several opportunities to address their arguments. Therefore, heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the impugned judgment rendered by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.3332/2012 dated 27.01.2015 wherein compensation in a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. has been ordered from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Appellant is the insurer who is ordered to deposit Rs.1,97,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. 3
2. Factual matrix of the appeal is that on 22.01.2012 at about 1.00 p.m., wherein the second respondent was proceeding in a Hyundai Santro car bearing registration No.KA-03-AB-1144 on Bangalore Mysore road, when he reached Mayaganahalli near Mahadev land, in the limits of Ramanagara, at that time the driver of a Scorpio car bearing registration No.KA- 09-N-4687 which came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner had hit against the second respondent's car. Thereby, his car was extensively damaged. Hence, he took the damaged car to Trident Automobiles for repair. Accordingly the said car was repaired for a sum of Rs.1,98,759/-.
3. It is relevant to state that subsequent to filing of the complaint by the complainant, a case in crime No.08/2012 came to be registered by the Ramanagara traffic Police for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of I.P.C. Thereafter investigation was 4 conducted and charge sheet was laid against accused being the driver of the offending Scorpio car bearing registration No.KA-09-N-4687.
4. Claim petition was filed by the second respondent under Section 166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation for the damages to the aforesaid vehicle in the said accident, against the respondents.
5. On service of notice, appellant - Insurer appeared through his counsel and filed objection statement in detail resisting the averments made in the claim petition seeking compensation for the damage of the vehicle. It had taken contention that petition filed is not maintainable either in facts or in law. Further, neither the police nor the RC holder had informed about the accident. Moreover, it was false to state that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and caused the accident.
5
6. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues. The second respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.15. Apart from that, P.W.2 to P.W.4 were also examined and got marked documents Exs.P.16 to
22. Subsequently on behalf of the Insurer, RW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.3.
7. On evaluating evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and so also Exs.P.1 to P.22 including the evidence of R.W.1 and so also documents at Exs.R.1 to R.3, the Tribunal ordered to pay the compensation for damages in a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- with interest at 6% p.a within 60 days from the date of the award.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer is not present to address the arguments despite of opportunities given to him. Therefore, it is relevant to take into consideration the grounds urged in the appeal. Grounds which are urged are that the Tribunal has 6 failed to note whether the damaged car had been surveyed or not. P.W.3 H.N. Girish, the General Manager of Trident Automobile Garage, has specifically stated that the car was repaired and they have charged Rs. 1,79,777/-. He has not stated about the nature of damages to the vehicle and as to which parts were replaced. Despite of that, the Tribunal has awarded compensation for damages in a sum of Rs.1,97,000/-. The further ground is that the Tribunal has failed to notice that P.W.4 had surveyed the vehicle on 08.02.2015, after the vehicle was got repaired. The accident took place on 22.01.2012. He had not surveyed the said vehicle before the vehicle was left for repair. This vital evidence has not been appreciated by the trial court. It is further taken ground that, at the time of the accident, the vehicle is 8 years old one. It was purchased on 18.05.2004 and the accident took place on 22.01.2012. The said aspect has not been considered by the tribunal for awarding compensation 7 for damages to the said vehicle. These are all the contentions in the appeal memo seeking for intervention of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the tribunal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 contends that the Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence namely, Ex.P.11 Motor surveyors report, Ex.P.19 estimation bill, Exs.P.13 5 invoices and so also Ex.P.14 5 photos, Ex.P.12 Trident Automobiles (P) Ltd. estimation list, Ex.P.20 detailed bill. These are all the documentary evidence which have been appreciated by the Tribunal for awarding compensation for damages to the said vehicle of Rs.1,97,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Hence, the Tribunal on consideration of the material available on record, has rightly awarded damages for the car, which judgment does not call for interference in this appeal. Therefore, 8 he seeks for dismissal of the appeal by confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
10. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is relevant to state that P.W.1 said to be R.C. owner of the damaged Honda Santro car bearing registration No.KA-03-AB- 1144 which was damaged on 22.01.2012 at about 1.00 p.m, wherein the driver of the Scorpio car bearing registration No.KA-09-N-4687 had hit the said car and caused damages. The same has been revealed in his evidence. The said damaged car was repaired from Trident Automobiles Pvt. Limited and charged sum of Rs.1,98,759/-. The same is also observed in the impugned judgment rendered by the Tribunal. A case in Crime No.8/2012 was also came to be registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 of I.P.C. 9
11. Therefore I find no substance in the contention of the counsel for the appellant in this appeal for intervention of the impugned judgment and award by way of compensation for damages to the vehicle and consequently, the appeal requires to be rejected as being devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, thereby confirming the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.3332/2012.
Amount in deposit if any in this appeal, shall be transmitted to the concerned MACT forthwith. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE HR