- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24779-DB MFA No. 8141 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8141 OF 2016 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: SMT DEEPA S RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O S RI. SADASHIVA RAO PROP:M/S MANJUNATHA ROADLINES, R/AT "SHIVAM", KADRI TEMPLE ROAD, MANJUNATH COLONY, KADRI, MANGALORE PIN: 575003. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ARUN KESHAV JOSHI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT S-14, SHIVASAI APARTMENT NO.167, PRATAPGANJ PETH, SATHRA, MAHARASTRA PIN CODE: 415001. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24779-DB MFA No. 8141 of 2016 2ND FLOOR, SRI RAM ARCADE OPP: HEAD OFFICE, UDUPI PIN CODE: 576101. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 3RD FLOOR, VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDING COURT ROAD, UDUPI UDUPI ALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE: 576101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A M VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. GIRISH KODGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1120/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24779-DB MFA No. 8141 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner has partially succeeded in her claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short the 'MV Act'] in recovering damages caused to her bus [a Volvo bus]. The petitioner's claim petition is in MVC No.1120/2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi [for short the 'Tribunal'], and the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award dated 07.09.2016 has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,35,112/- with costs of Rs.5,000/- holding that the first and the second respondents, the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are liable to pay compensation. The third respondent is the insurer of the claimant's vehicle. 2. It is undisputed that the claimant's bus met with an accident on 11.04.2005 at 1.00 am, when the driver of the first respondent's vehicle, a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24779-DB MFA No. 8141 of 2016 lorry, was rash and negligent. The claimant's bus is damaged and some passengers are injured. The claimant’s employee is also injured in this accident. The claimant's case for compensation in a sum of Rs.41,00,000/- hinges on the expenditure incurred by the claimant in getting the bus repaired and the losses suffered because she could not ply the bus when it was being repaired. 3. The Tribunal, based on the Surveyor's Report and the undisputed fact that the claimant's bus was insured with the third respondent, has granted a sum of Rs.6,35,112/- observing that the appellant could have incurred a sum of Rs.18,50,000/-, but out of this amount, Rs.13,00,000/- and odd is reimbursed by the third respondent under ‘Own Damage’ Policy. This Court finds no reason for interference on this ground when there is no dispute about the essential fact viz., that the third respondent has indeed reimbursed the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24779-DB MFA No. 8141 of 2016 amount of Rs.13,00,000/- out of the total sum of Rs.18,50,000/- incurred towards repair. 4. However, Ms. Swathi, the learned counsel for the claimant, seeks enhancement of compensation towards loss of business opportunities during the time the bus was undergoing repair and also towing and other expenses. Significantly, the learned counsel cannot dispute that towing expenses would be part of this survey and is therefore, reimbursed by the third respondent. Similarly, the learned counsel cannot dispute that the claimant has not brought on record the number of vehicles owned [including the spare vehicles as required under the relevant Motor Vehicle Rules], the income details for the relevant period and in the absence of these materials there cannot be any enhancement in compensation. 5. Lastly, Ms. Swathi argues that this Court must consider enhancement in compensation - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24779-DB MFA No. 8141 of 2016 Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE NV because the claimant had to service loans availed from bank for purchase of the vehicle without use of the vehicle during the relevant period. There is evidence to show that the claimant has purchased the vehicle on a loan, but to succeed on the ground that there was loss because the bus could not be plied, it was incumbent upon the claimant to show income during the relevant period and the loss therein. As aforesaid, none of the material details in this regard are produced and therefore there is no reason for interference even on this ground. Consequentially the appeal is rejected.