- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6398 MFA No. 21200 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21200 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, SIRSI DIVISION, SIRSI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF, LAW OFFICER, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. R. BENTUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJENDRA PANDURANG DEVAMARI, NEAR SESSION COURT, SANGOLA ROAD, PANDARAPUR, DIST: SOLLAPUR. 2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS 45 & 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600041. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.08.2012 PASSED IN M.V.C NO.170/2010 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T, SIRSI IN SO FAR AS DENYING THE COMPENSATION IN EXCESS OF RS.31,024/- AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL TO MEET THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6398 MFA No. 21200 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Heard the learned advocate for both the parties. 2. This is petitioner’s appeal against the judgment and award dated 24.08.2012 passed in M.V.C No.170/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Sirsi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that on 12.03.2009 around 10.45 p.m. the bus bearing registration No.KA-31/F-1012 belonging to the appellant met with an accident at Kora within the jurisdiction of Tumakur taluk on Bengaluru-Dandeli road due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No.MH-13/R- 3443 by its driver. As a result, there was damage to the said bus. Rs.31,024/- has been spent towards repairing charges and the said bus was kept idle for a period of 30 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6398 MFA No. 21200 of 2013 days and the appellant lost revenue of Rs.2,07,000/- as idle charges. With these reasons prayed to award compensation. 5. Respondent No.2 insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. lorry bearing registration No.MH-13/R-3443 denied the said contention and contended that claimants are not entitled for idling charges. 6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues; recorded the evidence and hearing both the side held that claimants are entitled for compensation towards repairing charges of Rs.31,024/- and rejected the claim of the appellant toward idling charges. The same is challenged in the present appeal. 7. The only question which arises for determination is “whether the appellant is entitled for idling charges?” 8. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Controller, NWKRTC Hubli Division, Hubli Vs. Devageri Transport, and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6398 MFA No. 21200 of 2013 another in MFA No.22133/2009 C/w. MFA No.22132/2009, disposed off on 29th June 2016, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relying upon an earlier judgment of this Court in MFA No.22143/2009, decided on 10.01.2014, and interpreting Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 69-A of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, held that “the owner of the transport bus is not entitled for idling charges”. 9. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 10.01.2014 passed in MFA No.22143/2009 held as under: “72. Grant of stage carriage permits.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 71, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under Section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit: provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. (2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6398 MFA No. 21200 of 2013 description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely- (i) to (xvi) - ΧΧΧΧ (xvii) The vehicles to be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions; 5. Rule 69 A of Karnataka Motor Vehicle, Rules 1989, reads as under: 69-A. Maintenance of reserve vehicles.- The conditions regarding maintenance of reserve vehicles specified in clause (xvii) of sub- section (2) of Section 72 of the Act, shall be incorporated in every permit granted to a person and the maximum number of reserve vehicles to be maintained with valid permits for such use shall be as specified in the table below: No. of permits Maximum number of reserve vehicles maintained that can be maintained Up to 4……… 1 5 to 10…….. 2 11 to 20…… 3 20 to 30….. 4 31 to 40 5 6. A perusal of the above provisions would clearly indicate that when a stage carriage permit has been issued to a vehicle the authorities would incorporate the condition that permit holder will have to have a spare vehicle or a reserve vehicle for being plied in the route in the eventuality of the vehicle issued with permit breaking down or being stationed for repair or for whatsoever reason if said vehicle is not plied.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6398 MFA No. 21200 of 2013 Principle of law laid down in the above case is applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case also Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards idling charges for some other reason. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules clearly indicate, since while granting permit, the Corporation has to keep spare vehicle, there will be no loss of revenue due idling of the vehicle. Hence claimant/appellant is not entitled for idling charges. There is no reason for interfering in the findings of the Tribunal. 10. For the aforesaid discussions, following orders are passed: ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 26.07.2012 passed in MVC No.393 of 2010 on the file of learned District Judge and MACT, Gadag is confirmed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6398 MFA No. 21200 of 2013 iii. Send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5