- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10828 MFA No. 25317 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25317 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, MANGANURE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, B.D. ROAD, CHITRADURGA. NOW REP: BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL CLAIMS, CTS. 472-474, V.A. KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CIRCLE, DESHAPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI, …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV) AND: 1. NWKRTC, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, R/O GADAG. 2. SRI. MAHAMMED FAYAZ S/O PYAREJAN AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NO.72, GUNDERI, HOLALKERI, DIST: CHITRADURGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANUUR, ADV FOR R1, SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.394/2010 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, GADAG, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,09,302/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.02 11:02:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10828 MFA No. 25317 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act, 1988” for short) by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned District Judge and MACT, Gadag, (herein after the Tribunal), in MVC No.394/2010 dated 10.08.2012 by the District Judge and MACT, Gadag. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: On 24.04.2008, at about 3.00 a.m, on Poona- Bangalore Road, near Harihareshwar Rice Mill, the bus of the petitioner-Corporation bearing Reg.No.KA-25/F-2439 was plying from Yadiyur to Gadag, and the driver of the bus was driving the same slowly. At that time, one lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-16/A-3686 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner collided with to the bus. As a result, the bus got damaged. A criminal case was registered against - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10828 MFA No. 25317 of 2012 the driver of the offending lorry. Hence, the petitioner- Corporation filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act 1988, claiming compensation for the damages caused to the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-25/F-2439. 3. Respondent No.1-owner of the lorry filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the lorry was insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company, and the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. The driver of the offending lorry was holding a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. It is contended that respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1-owner of the offending lorry. 4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10828 MFA No. 25317 of 2012 offending lorry do not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2- Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. To substantiate its case, Assistant Stores Officer of the petitioner-Corporation was examined as P.W.1, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. In rebuttal, neither the owner of the offending lorry nor the Insurance Company led oral or documentary evidence. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded compensation of Rs.1,09,302/-. The Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10828 MFA No. 25317 of 2012 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.81,000/- towards idling charges. He submits that the petitioner-Corporation was having spare vehicles, and no loss has been caused to them. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC vs Devageri Transport and Another in MFA No.22133/2009 c/w MFA No.22132/2009 disposed of on 29.06.2016. He submits that the petitioner-Corporation is not entitled to compensation of Rs.81,000/- towards the idling charges. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10828 MFA No. 25317 of 2012 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner- Corporation supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, and prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 11. It is not in dispute that the lorry collided with the bus, and as a result, the bus got damaged. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, the petitioner-Corporation has produced the certified copy of the charge sheet, which is marked as Ex.P6. 12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, petitioner-Corporation contended that the bus was not used for 27 days to repair the said bus. Hence, the petitioner-Corporation is entitled for idling charges at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per day. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10828 MFA No. 25317 of 2012 13. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Sub Section (2) of Section 72 of M.V.Act 1988, and Rule 69-A of the M.V. Rules, which are re-produced hereunder for the purpose of convenience. “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) – XXXX (xvii) The vehicles to be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions; 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 that can be maintained Up to 4……… 1 5 to 10……… 2 11 to 20…….. 3 20 to 30…….. 4 31 to 40……… 5 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10828 MFA No. 25317 of 2012 14. During the cross-examination, P.W.1 has clearly admitted that petitioner-Corporation used spare vehicles. Since the petitioner-Corporation used the spare vehicles, the petitioner-Corporation is not entitled for Rs.81,000/- towards idling charges. The Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the admission of P.W.1 in the cross- examination, and awarded compensation of Rs.81,000/- towards the idling charges. From the perusal of Ex.P9, it cannot be said that the bus requires 27 days for repair work. Thus, the Insurance Company has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the petitioner-corporation is entitled for compensation of Rs.28,302 (i.e. Rs.1,09,302-81,000/-) as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: 15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10828 MFA No. 25317 of 2012 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and the award dated 10.08.2012 passed in MVC No.394/2010 by the District Judge and MACT, Gadag is hereby modified. (iii) The petitioner-Corporation is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.28,302/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation. (iv) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. (v) The excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1