- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15845 MFA No. 802 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 802 OF 2012 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: SRI. KRISHNA RAJA RAI, S/O DOOMANNA RAI, AGED 41 YEARS, R/AT KUKKAJE HOUSE, MANCHI POST, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 211. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. MALATHI M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SOORAJ RAI, S/O DASAPPA RAI, AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT KUVEKKODI HOUSE, SOORIKUMERU, BALTHILA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 211. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BHARATH BUILDING, P.M. RAO ROAD, MANGALORE - 575 001. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, VARANASI TOWERS, MISSION STREET, BUNDER, MANGALORE - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 05.04.2014, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15845 MFA No. 802 of 2012 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.02.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.917/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT-II AND I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE D.K. MANGALORE. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C. No.917/2006 dated 26.02.2011 by the I Additional District Judge & MACT - II, D.K., Mangalore, the appellant - claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking for damages to the vehicle. the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,34,000/- on account of damages caused to the Toyota Qualis Maxi Cab and also the Tribunal has not awarded the interest from 27.2.2008 to 29.01.2011. While granting the damages, the Tribunal had observed that it is the case of the petitioner that due to the accident, his Toyota Qualis Maxi Cab was completely scrapped and was taken to the Swagath Auto Works, Mangalore and kept in the garage and till today, the vehicle is in the same condition as caused in the accident. The Surveyor was examined as PW.14. PW.14 had stated that on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15845 MFA No. 802 of 2012 17.06.2005, at the request made by the United India Insurance Company, he has inspected the Toyota Qualis Maxi Cab bearing No.KA-19-A-6552 and accordingly, he has issued report as per Ex.P146. Ex.P146 is a survey report given by P.W.14 surveyor and in the report he has assessed and noted that the vehicle was completely scrapped and does not required repair. Therefore, it was assessed and estimated as a total loss caused to the vehicle. As per the survey report at Ex.P146, the insured depreciation value as per the policy of insurance is stated as Rs.4,00,000/-. The salvage value of the wreck along with RC book is assessed at Rs.1,65,000/-. Further, the surveyor had deducted excess clause of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, As per that, he has assessed and estimated that as the claimant has sustained total loss of Rs.2,34,000/- and the Tribunal had granted the same. 3. This appeal is filed by the claimant in the year 2012. On several occasions, adjournments were sought and the matter was adjourned time and again. When this matter came up on the last occasion i.e., on 15.4.2025 at the request of the counsel for the appellant, the matter was listed today as part- heard and finally, time was granted and the matter was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15845 MFA No. 802 of 2012 directed to be listed on 16.04.2025. Today when the matter came up, the learned counsel representing the counsel for the appellant had sought for time. As the appeal is of the year 2012, it cannot be kept pending and this Court is proceeding to decide the same on the merits of the matter. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondent, perused the material on record. Earlier the petition filed by the claimant was dismissed on 27.2.2008 on the ground that he has not produced any evidence to show that he is the owner of the Toyota Qualis Maxi Cab. Later, an appeal was filed and in that, additional evidence is produced before the Court then the matter was remanded to the Tribunal. In the M.F.A., this Court also perused the reasons stated by the Court at paragraph No.11 for arriving at a conclusion that the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,34,000/- that is basing on the surveyor's report. No other document is placed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15845 MFA No. 802 of 2012 by the claimant and basing on the available evidence, the Court had rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed. i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the judgment passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. ii. No costs. iii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK