IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE M.F.A NO.10393 OF 2011 (MV) BETWEEN:
ABBAS KHAN S/O LATE BUDEN SAB AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O HALASUMANE VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT (BY MR.PRANEETH G.N., ADV.) AND:
1. V KASHI VISHWANANTHAN S/O P VIRUMANDI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS DRIVER OF MINI LORRY NO. TN 10 M 5437, R/O 4-3-16, MUTHULAPURAM, POOSARI PATTI POST, NEELAKOTTAI TALUK, DINDIGAL DISTRICT TAMIL NADU 2. M G GIRIDHARAN S/O S M GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OWNER OF MINI LORRY NO.
TN 10 M 5437, R/O PLOT NO. 63 D.NO.2, 2ND STREET, BALAJINAGAR VIRUGAMBAKAM, CHENNAI- 600 092 TAMIL NADU … APPELLANT 3. M/S BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BHAGAVATHI PALACE, 2ND FLOOR, J BLOCK, NO. 13, 3RD AVENUE , ANNA NAGAR EAST, CHENNAI -102 BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 4. M/S BAJAJ ALLAIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MATHIAS TOWERS, I G ROAD, CHIKMAGALUR CITY BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE, PANDURANGA COMPLEX K T STREET, CHIKMAGALUR CITY … RESPONDENTS (BY MR.H.S.LINGARAJ ADV. FOR R3 MR.R.RAJAGOPALAN ADV. FOR R5 R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) - - -
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.4.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.278/2008 ON THE FILE OF C/c ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, CHIKMAGALUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Mr.Praneeth G.N. for Mr.Vigneshwar S.Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr.H.S.Lingaraj, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
Mr.R.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
3. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to him on account of damages caused to his vehicle in an accident, which took place on 21.08.2007.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 21.08.2007 at about 4.30 p.m. while deceased Naveed was driving the Tata Ace Goods Auto along with household goods of one Puttaswamy and Anusuya of Chikmagalur, a mini lorry was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1, which dashed against the goods auto of the deceased. As a result of this, the respondent No.1 sustained injuries in the aforesaid accident and the goods auto was damaged and Naveed Ahmed succumbed to injuries and died. The appellant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on account of the damages caused to the goods auto. The respondent filed the written statement opposing the prayer made in the petition. The claims tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The claims tribunal inter alia held that on 21.08.2007, an accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.1. The claims tribunal however, held that the appellant has failed to bring on record the extent of damages caused to the auto. The claims tribunal therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-by way of compensation to the appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant while inviting the attention of this Court to Ex.P4 i.e., IMV report submitted that the front windscreens glass, right side head light, indicator of the vehicle have been broken and dashboard, steering wheel, right side bumper, top of the body and left side door were damaged. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded in the fact situation of the case is meager. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and has submitted that no evidence was led by the appellant to prove the damages caused to the auto. It is further submitted that even survey report was not produced.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of Ex.P4 IMV report, it is evident that that the front windscreens glass, right side head light, indicator of the vehicle have been broken and dashboard, steering wheel, right side bumper, top of the body and left side door were damaged. Even though the extent of damages is not mentioned but in the considered opinion of this Court the repair of the vehicle must have incurred more than Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation of Rs.15,000/-. To the aforesaid extent, the award passed by the claims tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE SS