- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560 MFA No. 22568 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22568 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT HUBLI, REP. ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NOW REP.BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANT ARCADE, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE N.W.K.R.T.C, GADAG DIVISION, GADAG, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, AGE MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. GADAG. 2. N. H. KATEGERI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.5333, RAGHUNATH PETH, ANGOL, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, GADAG IN MVC NO.393 OF 2010 DATED 26.07.2012 WITH COST AND INTERESTS IN THE INTEREST OF 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:5560 MFA No. 22568 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 a insurer’s appeal against the judgment and award dated 26.07.2012 passed in MVC No.393 of 2010 on the file of learned District Judge and MACT, Gadag (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The claimant is owner of the bus. It met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-22/6395 belonging to respondent No.1 and it was insured with respondent No.2. Both the vehicle colluded on 16.07.2009 around 9:00 p.m. on Gagad-Hubli road near Manakawad cross. As a result of impact the bus belonging to the appellant/claimant was damaged. The said bus was in the garage during repairs for nearly 60 days causing loss of revenue to the claimant - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560 MFA No. 22568 of 2013 to an extent of Rs.4,14,000/- and expenses to repair the said vehicle was Rs.1,41,065/- and total Rs.5,55,065/- was claimed by the claimant as a damage to the vehicle. 5. The learned counsel for appellant contends that looking to the damage stated in the mahazar, it can not take 60 days to repair the same. The Tribunal has taken 60 days for calculating idle charges which is incorrect. Even the amount awarded as damage for the repair of the vehicle is also on higher side. Therefore prays to award reasonable amount of compensation. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant produced a copy of the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Controller, NWKRTC Hubli Division, Hubli Vs. Devageri Transport, and another in MFA No.22133/2009 C/w. MFA No.22132/2009, disposed off on 29th June 2016. In the aforesaid case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relying upon an earlier judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.22143/2009, decided on 10.01.2014, and interpreting Section 72(2) of the Motor - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560 MFA No. 22568 of 2013 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. In view of the same, the award of compensation by the Tribunal in respect of idling charges for 60 days is not permissible. The Corporation is entitled to compensation only for the damage to the vehicle i.e., Rs.1,41,065/-. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant-Corporation vehemently contends that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the case and awarded the compensation. The claimants claimed Rs.4,14,000/- for keeping the said bus idle during the period of repair. But Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1.80,000/- taking the period of repair as 60 days and calculated the loss of income at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per day. However Corporation has not filed any appeal against the award. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justifiable and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Facts of the accident and damage to the bus belonging to the claimant etc., are not in dispute. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560 MFA No. 22568 of 2013 claimants have not produced survey report regarding assessment of damage, however they have produced the job card that shows that Rs.1,41,065/- was total expenses including the repair charges. Therefore the Tribunal rightly assessed the repair charges in the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 9. The main grievance of the appellant is that for repairing the said vehicle, 60 days time was not required. Therefore awarding of the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- as loss of revenue to the Corporation is incorrect. 10. Ex.P4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report wherein damage to the vehicle are stated as under: i. Front right side window corner pressed & damaged. ii. Right side body had fresh window works. iii. Front both window side glasses broken. iv. Front bumper pressed inwards on either side. v. Right side and left side windows top glasses broken. vi. Rear window side glass broken. 11. Looking to the said damage to the bus, it is difficult to believe that 60 days time is required to repair the bus. Undisputedly the buses belonging to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560 MFA No. 22568 of 2013 Corporation are having stage carriage permit. As per Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Corporation shall maintain reserve vehicles. Hence even if the vehicle was in the garage under repairs, it would not have affected revenue of the Corporation and hence it is not entitled for idling charges. 12. 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 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560 MFA No. 22568 of 2013 (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.” Principle of law laid down in the above case is applicable to the facts of the present case. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560 MFA No. 22568 of 2013 13. Relying on the above said judgment, Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 29.06.2016 rejected the claim of the Corporation to award idling charges. 14. In view of the above, claimant-Corporation is not entitled for idling charges and it is entitled for repairing charges only. Accordingly this Court pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. 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 modified. iii. The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,41,065/- as against Rs.3,21,065/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5560 MFA No. 22568 of 2013 rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. iv. Remaining portion of the order of the Tribunal is not disturbed. v. Whatever amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. vi. Send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5