- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20417 MFA No. 9957 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9957 OF 2013 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: MR. S.M.ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O T S MOIDEEN KUNHI, R/AT SAMANIGE HOUSE, ASSAIGOLI POST, MANJANADY, MANGALORE TALUK-575 001. …APPELLANT (BY MR. STEEPHEN MATHEW, ADVOCATE FOR MR. KARUNAKARA P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. RAYAN N.S.CRASTA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE ALBERTS CRASTA, R/AT 17-1320/22, ATTAVAR, MANGALORE-575 001. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SALDANHA BUILDING, BRIDGE ROAD, BALMATTA, MANGALORE-575 001. 3. THE MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. ARKAY AGENCIES, SWASTIC CASTEW COMPOUND, PADAVINANGADY, MANGALORE-575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SANDHYA U PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-3; Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20417 MFA No. 9957 of 2013 MR. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED *30.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.907/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,MEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 2. The petitioner in MVC.No.907/2011 before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal and III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K. is assailing the dismissal of his claim by judgment dated *30.03.2013. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner/appellant who was the RC owner of Maruti Omni bearing registration No.KA-18M-5969 and on 02.03.2011, when he had parked near Shamoon Hotel, the Tempo bearing registration No.KA-19B-2974 was driven in high *Corrected vide Chamber's order dated 26.07.2025* - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20417 MFA No. 9957 of 2013 speed and he dashed to an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-19C-7721, which in turn, hit on the back of Maruthi Omni of the petitioner. As a result, the Maruthi Omni of the petitioner also went forward and dashed to a Mercedes Car. A complaint was filed by one Robert D'Souza to the concerned Police and the Police registered a non-cognizable offence and a charge memo was issued to the owner of the tempo and it seems he paid the fine of Rs.500/- to the Police (Ex.P3 depicts the same). The Police did not file any charge sheet for any of the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. The petitioner contends that he subjected his vehicle to a survey by the authorized surveyor and thereafter, he got it repaired by purchasing the spares from the Maruthi authorized dealer and through a mechanic of Auto World. Therefore, he claims that the petitioner is entitled for the damages to his vehicle and as such, approached the Tribunal seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the tempo. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20417 MFA No. 9957 of 2013 4. The petition was opposed by the Insurance Company of the tempo only. It contended that the contentions of the petitioner that there was damages to the vehicle are false and frivolous and there is no such damage to his vehicle and that there being violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the driver of the tempo, its liability is in dispute. 5. On that basis of the above contention, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and the petitioner was examined as PW.1. Three witnesses were examined on his behalf as PWs.2 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P14 and Ex.C1 were marked. Respondent No.2 did not adduce any oral evidence but copy of the policy was marked as Ex.R1. 6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the said accident is not established by the petitioner and the damages was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20417 MFA No. 9957 of 2013 also not established by him. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Police though did not register an FIR, they had issued a traffic challan which clearly depicts that there was an allegation against the Tempo driver and that pleading guilty by paying fine, the driver admitted the accident and as such, it was not proper on the part of the Tribunal to hold that there was no such accident. It is also submitted that the Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion so far as the damages are concerned. It is submitted that PW.4 had stated that the garage was not being run by him for the last 10 months but the Tribunal takes the same at 10 years. Therefore, he submit that a reassessment has to be made. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the petitioner is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20417 MFA No. 9957 of 2013 entitled for the compensation since the factum of the accident itself is in dispute. He submits that the petitioner should have filed a complaint and registered an FIR to establish that there was an accident. 9. A careful perusal of the trial Court records would show that though one Robert had filed a detailed complaint to the Police, there being no physical injuries to any of the person, the Police registered a non-cognizable case and ultimately, fined the driver of the Tempo. This aspect cannot be disputed by the respondent No.2- Insurance Company in view of Exs.P2 and P3. The complaint filed by Robert D'Souza at Ex.P2 show that the Maruthi Omni of the petitioner was parked by the side of the road and a Tempo had collided with Auto Rickshaw and inturn Auto Rickshaw had collided with the Maruthi Omni. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the Tempo driver is established. This evidence available on record, is in no way rebutted by respondents. The cross-examination of PW.1 does not show anything which would show that there - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20417 MFA No. 9957 of 2013 was no such accident. In fact, he is firm in saying that his vehicle was taken to the Police Station and he had subjected the said vehicle to a survey by the authorized surveyor. 10. The said surveyor is examined as PW.2 and he states that at the request of the petitioner, he surveyed the vehicle and gave him report as per Ex.P5. The said document shows that an assessment of the damage was made by him at Rs.32,810/- and later, the petitioner got the vehicle repaired and thereafter, he once again examined the same and ultimately, he assessed the labour charges at Rs.17,013.41/- and the spares at Rs.9,150/-. This aspect would show that the petitioner had purchased the spares from an authorized dealer of the Maruthi Service Dealer and then, he had taken them to Auto World of PW.4 and then got them fixed to the vehicle. Testimony of the PW.4 would show that he was running the said Auto World Garage and though in the cross-examination he had stated that he is not running the said garage for last 10 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20417 MFA No. 9957 of 2013 months, the Tribunal notes that he was not running the said Auto World for last 10 years. Apparently, this is an error on the part of the Tribunal in holding that at the time of the incident, he was not at all running any garage. In that view of the matter, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that there was no such accident in which the vehicle of the petitioner was damaged is not sustainable in law. The factum of the accident had been proved by the petitioner and also the damages are also proved by him. A perusal of Exs.P9 to P13 show that a total sum of Rs.19,323/- was spent by the petitioner. There cannot be any doubt that the petitioner is entitled for this amount. 11. In addition to it, a moderate sum of Rs.15,000/- has to be added towards the amount which the petitioner would have spent for hiring any other vehicle for his work. Under these circumstances, it would be just and proper to award a total compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the petitioner including the bill of the surveyor. So far as the contention of the learned counsel - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20417 MFA No. 9957 of 2013 for respondent No.2 that the petitioner might have received compensation from his insurer is concerned, there appears to be no such material elicited in the cross- examination. Moreover, the original bills have been produced and nothing is elicited from the mouth of surveyor to say that he had issued any such survey report to any insurance company. Hence, this argument is not sustainable. 12. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) Petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. iii) The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount as provided under - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20417 MFA No. 9957 of 2013 Section 168(3) of MV Act. In the event of deposit, entire amount to be released to the petitioner. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59