Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1950 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
1. SRI DR. B. APPAJI
S/O LATE S. BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, C/O. DR.PRADEEP, 12TH CROSS, LEELAVATHI EXTENSION, WATER TANK ROAD, GORAVANAHALLI ROAD, MADDUR TOWN, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT 571401 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MARI GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
OWNER CUM CHIEF Digitally signed CUSTODIAN OF II FUND, by BHARATHI K.S.R.T.C, BUS NO.KA-40/F-564, S Location: HIGH K.H. DOUBLE ROAD, COURT OF SHANTHINAGAR, KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560027
2. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD 1ST FLOOR, V.V. ROAD, MANDYA DISTRICT 571401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUMANGALA A SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) -2- THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.313/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MADDUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the Claimant being dis- satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur1, vide judgment
and award dated 6.2.2013 passed in MVC.No.313/2012.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration
of the present appeal are that the claimant along with his family members were traveling in a Maruthi Car bearing No.KA-11/M9945 from Bengaluru towards Mandya, at which time a bus belonging to the first respondent - KSRTC came from the bus stand to the highway without Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ -3-
giving any signal and hit against the car of the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant suffered injuries and the car was damaged. Claiming compensation for the injuries sustained as well for damages to the car, the claimant filed MVC No.313/2012 arraying the KSRTC as first respondent and the insurer of the car as the second respondent.
4. The said claim proceedings were contested by the respondents. The claimant adduced his evidence as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P8 were marked in evidence. The evidence of the driver of the first respondent was adduced as RW.1. However, no documents were marked in evidence. The Tribunal vide
judgment and award dated 6.2.2013 allowed the claim
petition in part and ordered the first respondent to pay a compensation of `10,000/- together with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the above appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. -4-
5. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the finding of the Tribunal rejecting the claim made towards loss of damages caused to the car. Along with appeal, I.A.1/2015 has been filed to produce additional evidence. Enhancement of compensation awarded towards injuries is also sought.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 justifies the award made by the Tribunal and seeks for dismissal of the above appeal.
7. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal while
considering the claim of the claimant regarding the vehicle damage has recorded a finding that the claimant has not produced the relevant documents to prove that he is the owner of the car. In the absence of the same, the claim made towards the vehicle damage has been rejected. With regard to the injuries sustained, the Tribunal has noticed that the injuries sustained are 3 simple injuries and awarded a global compensation of `10,000/-.
-5-
8. Along with the above appeal, the claimant has
filed IA.1/2015 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to permit him to produce the ‘B’ Register extract to show that he is the owner of the car. No objections have been filed by the respondents to IA.No.1/2015.
9. The contentions have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arises for consideration are: 1) Whether IA.1/2015 is required to be allowed? 2) Whether the compensation is required to be enhanced?
10. Having regard to the fact that the ‘B’ Register
extract of the vehicle in question has been produced and the same relates to the present case and the said document is relevant for deciding the questions that arise for consideration in the present appeal, it is just and proper that the said application be allowed and the -6- documents produced along with the same be taken on record for adjudicating upon the present appeal. Accordingly, IA.1/2015 is allowed and the documents are taken on record. Accordingly question No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
11. It is forthcoming from the ‘B’ Register extract
produced by the claimant that he is the owner of the car bearing No.KA-11/M 9945. Hence, it is clear that he being the owner of the car he is entitled to claim compensation for the damages caused to the car.
12. With regard to the quantum of compensation to
be awarded towards damage to the car, it is forthcoming from the evidence of PW.2 who is a mechanic that he has taken one month to repair the car. The claimant has also produced the bills for having incurred the necessary expenses towards the repair of the car. It is forthcoming from the bills at Ex.P7 that a sum of `19,490/- has been incurred towards the replacement of parts and a further sum of `15,400/- has been incurred towards labour
-7- charges. The claimant has also produced and marked the photographs of the car in question to demonstrate the damages that have been caused. However, the aspect regarding depreciation is also required to be kept in mind before any compensation is awarded towards the damages caused to the car.
13. It is also relevant to note that the claimant has
not claimed insurance from the insurer of the car for the damages caused to the vehicle and there has not been any assessment of damages by any qualified valuer/loss assessor. In view of the same, the quantum is required to be assessed keeping in mind the aforementioned factors.
14. Under normal circumstances, having regard to
the fact that IA.1/2015 has been allowed and the assessment of quantum towards vehicle damage has not been made, the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for consideration regarding the same. However, having regard to the fact that the date of accident is 31.10.2011 and the appeal before this Court is pending
-8- since nearly 10 years, the assessment of compensation towards vehicle damage is done in the present appeal itself.
15. Having regard to the fact that some amount is
required to be deducted towards depreciation and as on the date of the accident the car was 12 years old, it is just and proper that towards vehicle damage, a lumpsum amount of `7,000/- be awarded.
16. With regard to the injuries suffered, the
claimant having suffered simple injuries and the said aspect having been considered by the Tribunal and a global compensation of `10,000/- having been granted, interference with the same is not warranted.
17. Hence question No.2 is also answered in the affirmative.
18. In view of the aforementioned, the following
order is passed:
-9-
ORDER
i) I.A.1/2015 is allowed and the documents are taken on record and considered while adjudicating the above appeal on merits. ii) The appeal is allowed in part; iii) The judgment and award dated 6.2.2013
passed in MVC No.313/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur, is hereby modified to the extent of awarding a further sum of `7,000/- together with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till realization. In all other respects, the judgment and award dated 6.202013 passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered;
iv) The Respondent No.2 - insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest accrued before the Tribunal thereon within six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 10 - v) Upon such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the Claimant. vi) Registry to draw the modified award accordingly. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71