- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20788 MFA No. 6941 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6941 OF 2016 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, S.S.COMPLEX, SHUBAS SQUARE, HASSAN. BY THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580 020. BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RUDRAPPA AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE SIDDAPPA, R/O.SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. AT PRESENTLY R/O. RUDRAPPA, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE SIDDAPPA, C/O.DOOR NO.16:591, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS, SHANTHINAGARA, HASSAN-573 201. Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20788 MFA No. 6941 of 2016 2. SATHYANARAYANA S.K AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAMURTHI, NEAR WATERPILLER HOUSE, LAKSHMIPURA EXTENSION, SAKALESHAPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 04/03/2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD-SUFFICIENT, VIDE ORDER DATED 19/10/16, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.583/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award 8.07.2016 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Additional MACT, Hassan in MVC.No.583/2015 (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.01.2014 at about 7.00 a.m., the petitioner parked the tractor bearing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20788 MFA No. 6941 of 2016 registration No.KA-13-693 near Dummenahalli village on Chikkamagaluru road and waiting for the labourers. At that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-46-M-2626, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the tractor. As a result, the said tractor was damaged and the petitioner incurred an expense of Rs.1,00,000/- towards repair of the said vehicle. The said vehicle was parked in the garage for more than a month, during that period the petitioner lost income of Rs.1,50,000/-. For these reasons, the petitioners prayed to award compensation of Rs.3,30,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car. Respondents filed written statement denying the contention of the claimant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal framed the necessary issues for determination. 6. To prove his case, the claimant had examined himself as PW-1 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked one document as Ex.R1. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, held that the said tractor was damaged in the alleged incident and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Same is challenged by the insurer in the present appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20788 MFA No. 6941 of 2016 7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant - insurer. 8. It is the duty of the claimant to prove that he was the owner of the said vehicle as on the date of accident and he had actually spent Rs.1,00,000/- to repair the tractor-trailor. However, the claimant has not produced the RC of the vehicle to prove his ownership as on the date of the accident. The claimant has produced a Motor vehicle inspection report at Ex.P8, which pertains to the car bearing registration No.KA-46-M-2626. The document does not show any damage to the claimants vehicle. 9. Prior to the repair of the said vehicle or immediately after the accident, the claimant has not assessed the estimated cost of repair by an approved valuer. He has only produced the receipt at Ex.P12. According to photograph produced by the claimant, there were some damage to the tractor. The claimant has not examined the owner of the garage to prove the damage to the tractor due to the accident in question. There are no materials to substantiate that the said tractor was damaged in the alleged vehicle accident. 10. The Tribunal based solely on the oral evidence of PW-1, awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The said finding is based on mere presumption and is not tenable. Therefore, interference with the said finding is required. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20788 MFA No. 6941 of 2016 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 08.07.2016 passed by V Additional District and Sessions Court and Additional MACT at Hassan in MVC.No.583/2015 is set aside. The claim petition is dismissed. iii. Whatever the amount deposited by the Insurance company, shall be refunded to it on due identification. iv. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with the copy of the judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31