- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326 MFA No. 201079 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201079 OF 2019 (MV) BETWEEN: SMT. BHARATI W/O MALLAPPA @ MALLANAGOUDA CHOUDARI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HARNAL, TQ: SINDAGI, NOW RESIDING AT ADARSH NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S KARNATAKA ENTERPRISES , BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. KULSOOM FATIMA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.1, KHAN COMPLEX, OPP: GDA COLONY, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 101. 2. THE MANAGER LEGAL, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT, 9TH FLOOR, LEVEL-6, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH C-CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJI NAGAR, 4TH MAIN, BANGALORE – 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326 MFA No. 201079 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND MEMBER MACT-V, VIJAYPAURA IN MVC NO.593/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 15.04.2019 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM & Member MACT-V, Vijaypur (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC No.593/2016, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel submitted appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted on 15.12.2015 at about 6.00 p.m., when Mallappa @ Mallanagouda along with driver Appu Dhawalagi were proceeding towards Jewargi on tractor/Harvesting Machine bearing registration no.KA-28/TB-3926-27 on Vijayapura-Gulbarga road, near Nedalagi village, driver of lorry bearing registration no.KA-32/B-5955 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Harvesting Machine. In said accident, Mallappa sustained grievous injuries and died - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326 MFA No. 201079 of 2019 during treatment. Harvesting Machine purchased for Rs.12,00,000/- sustained severe damages. Wife of Mallappa filed MVC no.593/2016 under Section 166 of M.V.Act, claiming compensation for damages caused to Harvesting Machine. 3. On service of notice, owner of lorry did not appear. He was placed ex-parte. Only insurer opposed claim petition by filing objections denying accident, involvement of insured vehicle in said accident as well as damages sustained to Harvesting Machine. It alleged violation of policy conditions by insured. 4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined herself as PW.1 and also examined Anand Vaidya-insurance surveyor as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13A. In response, insurer did not lead oral evidence but got marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1 with consent. 5. On consideration, tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver, claimant had sustained loss due to damages to Harvesting Machine and insurer was liable to pay compensation. It - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326 MFA No. 201079 of 2019 awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. Dissatisfied with award, claimant was in appeal. 6. It was submitted Harvesting Machine was purchased for sum of Rs.12,00,000/- by availing loan from financial institution. Due to damages sustained in accident, Harvesting Machine was rendered unusable, while claimant got the tractor attached to it repaired by spending Rs.1,63,836/-. Under incorrect presumption that amount spend towards repair of tractor was in respect of entire Harvesting Machine, tribunal had granted inadequate compensation. On said grounds sought enhancement. 7. On other hand, Sri Manjunath Mallayya Shetty, learned counsel for respondent-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted claimant had failed to produce material about amount required for repair of Harvesting Machine. Tribunal had appreciated repair estimates produced and awarded global compensation, same was justified and did not call for interference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326 MFA No. 201079 of 2019 8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 9. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for enhancement of compensation, point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?” 10. From above, occurrence of accident, involving claimant’s Harvesting Machine belonging to claimant’s husband and lorry insured with respondent no.2-insurer are not in dispute. Tribunal held claimant had established damages being sustained by Harvesting Machine. Insurer has not preferred appeal against said finding. Therefore, extent of damages sustained and whether award is commensurate has to be examined. To substantiate extent of damages, loss of value or cost of repairs, claimant relied on Exs.P7 to P13A namely Registration Certificate book of Harvesting Machine, estimation report, Motor Vehicle’s Inspector report, estimate given by private insurance surveyor and estimation of tractor repair, photographs and CD. While passing impugned award, tribunal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326 MFA No. 201079 of 2019 referred to estimation report given by private insurance surveyor which was for Rs.7,70,000/-. It observed estimation report at Ex.P12, issued by V K Commercial Corporation, Sindhanur, was issued after filing of claim petition and was not supported by report of any surveyor. Admittedly, claimant had examined Anand Vaidya, private insurance surveyor as PW.3, who had issued Ex.P8. In cross-examination, it is elicited that accident occurred on 15.12.2015, inspection done by him was on 21.03.2016 and report was issued on 22.05.2017. He was also cross-examined about delay in survey, witness explained that same was due to receipt of intimation belatedly. Suggestions made about damages sustained by Harvesting Machine were not be related to accident in question were denied. Suggestions about such damages may have been caused due to involvement of vehicle in some other accident is also denied. It has to be noted that no material was placed to establish improvement of Harvester Machine in any other accident. Ex.P9-MVI report reveals damages sustained by Harvesting Machine were as follows: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326 MFA No. 201079 of 2019 “6.(b)(II) Registration Number :KA-28-TB/3926/27 ii. KA 28 TB 3926/27 :- Cutting frame of Harvester (rear) damaged and came out flames and its fixture. 2. Front bumper, radiator, rear both wheels arches are pressed and damaged. 3. Rear body pressed in words and silencer pipe found bend. 4. Trailor rear both wheels dislocated from m.v. with rear axle. 5. Cop hood of tractor found pressed in words. 6. Fodder (Cutter bar) found damaged.” 11. Ex.P8 is accident vehicle repair cost assessement by Anand Vaidya-PW3. Spare parts required for repair and their approximate value mentioned therein is as follows: Spare Parts Sr.No. Description At Cost 1 Cutter bar assy (Crushed badly & Cut) 150000.00 2 Reel assy (Crushed & Cut) 35000.00 3 Tank assy (Staorage) – Folded 20000.00 4 Stawker assy 5 set (Allowed two set only) 16000.00 5 Front axle (Bent) 35000.00 6 Hissa & Chulla assy – Crumpled 45000.00 7 Body assy (Complete body affected badly) 250000.00 8 Elevtor assy (Folded & bent) 20000.00 9 Other parts (like nut bolts, hard ware materials, belts, chains etc) 30000.00 10 Welding / cutting and aligning charges 35000.00 11 Labour charges (Allowed all parts fabricating and fixing charges 50000.00 Total 686000.00 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326 MFA No. 201079 of 2019 12. Ex.P10 is repair bill issued by M/s.Renuka Agro Engineering Company. Claimant has also produced an estimate issued by VK Commercial Corporation, Sindhanur, dealer of Harvesting Machine of cost of repairs as follows: Sl.no. Description Qty U.Price Total cost 1 Cutter Bar Assembly 1 set 200000.00 150000.00 2 Reel Assembly 1 set 35000.00 35000.00 3 Tank Assembly 1 set 20000.00 20000.00 4 Stawker Assembly 5 set 8000.00 40000.00 5 Front Axle Set 1 set 45000.00 45000.00 6 Hissa and Chulla Assembly 1 set 60000.00 60000.00 7 Body Assembly 1 set 300000.00 250000.00 8 Elevetor Assembly 2 set 10000.00 20000.00 9 Other parts 50000.00 9 Welding works 50000.00 10 Labour Charges 50000.00 Total Amount 770000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy thousand only) 13. Copies of photographs of damaged Harvesting Machine, marked as Ex.P13 indicates extensive damage sustained by Harvesting Machine. Since it involves many moving parts wherein damages sustained are dents and bends which result in mis-alignment and consequent affect or non- functionality of that part, rendering Harvesting Machine inoperable. Unlike in normal motor vehicles where there are functional parts and show parts, in Harvestor Machine there are virtually no show-parts and it is almost comprised of functional - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326 MFA No. 201079 of 2019 parts. In oral evidence, claimant has re-iterated about damages sustained by Harvesting Machine and loss of income on that count. During cross-examination, suggestions about Harvesting Machine not earning income as claimed were made and denied. It is elicited that Harvesting Machine was still lying un-repaired and about Ex.P8 survey report not pertaining to Harvesting Machine in question. While, there is some material in support of claimant’s assertions, insurer did not lead oral evidence. While passing impugned award, tribunal has not referred to said material. Ignoring that Ex.P8, estimation report was by recognized private insurance surveyor and who had also deposed as PW.3, it observed that petitioner’s claim was not supported by report of surveyor. Said observation would be contrary to material on record. 14. Taking note of fact that there is overlapping of estimate cost between Ex.P8 and P11, with a difference of nearly Rs.1,00,000/-, it would be appropriate to adopt later estimate at Ex.P8. Said estimation is also supported by deposition of PW.3. Under above circumstances, award of global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as done by tribunal - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326 MFA No. 201079 of 2019 would not be justified. It would be appropriate to award amount mentioned in Ex.P8 i.e., Rs.6,86,000/- 15. Apart from above, on account of damages sustained and inability of claimant to fund repair while insurer refused to indemnify claimant, there is loss of earnings from said Harvesting Machine. In absence of any specific material about quantum of loss and keeping in mind that claimant has disposed about payment of loan EMIs during said period, it would be appropriate to award lump-sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as loss of income due to lay-off. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Judgment and award passed by tribunal is modified. (iii) Claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.8,86,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3326 MFA No. 201079 of 2019 (iv) Respondent-insurer is directed to deposit same before Tribunal within a period of six weeks. (v) On deposit, tribunal is directed to release same in favour of claimant on proper identification. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61 Ct;Vk