- 1 - MFA No.6119 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6119/2015(MV-DM) BETWEEN: MR. ASHOK KUMAR .V S/O VASUDEV PANIKAR AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASHOK BHAVAN, MON COMPU POST, ALLEPPY DISTRICT KERALA-688 502, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.4, TYPE-III, KENDRIYA VIDYALA NO.1, PANAMBUR, MANGALORE, D.K. PIN-575 010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY .G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MEENA S. ALVA, C/O SREE MOOKAMBIKA GAS AGENCY, HARADI, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. PIN-574 201. 2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., OFFICE AT III FLOOR, EMKAY’S SHALIMAR COMPLEX, KANKANADY, MANGALORE, D.K. PIN-575 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1-SERVED) - 2 - MFA No.6119 of 2015 THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.707/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT II, D.K, MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 02.03.2015 passed in MVC No.1892/2012 & 707/2013 on the file of the MACT II & I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore. The petitioner was filed for award of compensation in respect of the accident caused to the Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KL.07/V.7369 in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.10.2012. - 3 - MFA No.6119 of 2015 2. The manner of the accident as per PW1 is that on 10.10.2012 at about 4.10 p.m., when the petitioner was driving Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KL.07/V.7369 along with wife and travelling from Jeppinamogaru to Panambur side, he was driving the said car slowly and carefully by observing the traffic rules and regulations on the correct side of the road, at 4.10 pm, when the said car reached at Daddalkad on Mangalore-Udupi NH66, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA.21/A.6009 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed his car from behind as a result accident occurred and his wife died. 3. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and he also examined PW3 surveyor and marked the documents from Exs.P1 to P27. Ex.P2 is the complaint given by Sowmya, who was travelling in the car, at the time of the accident and sitting on the rear seat. Ex.P3 is the accident report and Ex.P4 is the post mortem report and Ex.P5 is the IMV report. - 4 - MFA No.6119 of 2015 4. It is submitted that when the lorry driver dashed the car, the car went ahead 150 feet and toppled. He stated that his car was seized by the police and then released, then transported the car to the Car World Kallapu Permannur Mangalore for repair and the surveyor inspected the vehicle and prepared the report estimating the repair charges for more than Rs.1,23,856/- and pre- accident market value of the vehicle is Rs.65,000/-. As the repair of vehicle is not economical, treated as total loss and sold to the scrap for Rs.10,000/-. As such, he is entitled for balance amount and the surveyor fees. PW3 inspected the vehicle and estimated the damage and repair and issued his report under Ex.P17- Surveyor report, Ex.P18 –Quotation, Ex.P19- fee receipt and Ex.P20 - Photographs. Ex.P21 is the CD. 5. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he is the owner of the car and he has not stated whether his car was in shape and whether he made any claim from the Insurance - 5 - MFA No.6119 of 2015 Company. As per the survey report, the vehicle was of 1999 model and it was used for 13 years. As such, it is difficult to believe that pre-accident market value was Rs.65,000/-. There is no validation from the Maruthi authorized dealer. No satisfactory evidence to prove that vehicle was treated as a scrap and sold to the scrap vendor. As the registration certificate of vehicle is not produced by PW1, he has no locus standi to claim damages. He has not filed any document to show that vehicle was standing in his name, as on the date of accident. Thus he is not entitled for compensation. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that appellant failed to prove show the ownership of the vehicle. In the investigation of the police, there is no finding that appellant is not the owner of the car, or that he was driving the car without license. The market value of the car, as on the date of - 6 - MFA No.6119 of 2015 accident was Rs. 65,000/- and the estimated cost of the repair for more than Rs.1,23,856/-, but he sold it as scrap for Rs.10,000/-. Photographs are also produced. The Tribunal ought to have awarded market value of the car as Rs.65,000/- and survey charges as Rs.4,000 with interest, but failed to do so. 7. The owner of the car also filed another case claiming compensation for the death of his wife. When he filed an application claiming damages for the car, it is for him to prove that he is the owner of the vehicle. His argument that in the investigation, there was no finding that he is not the owner of the car and he was driving the car without license cannot be accepted. Though PW2 is the surveyor of the Insurance Company and he estimated the cost of repairs as more than Rs.1,23,856/-, it is for PW1 to prove that the car is in his name and he is the owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident. He has not filed any document to that effect, even in the appeal and he has not filed any document to show that the car was insured and - 7 - MFA No.6119 of 2015 whether he made any claim from the Insurance Company. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and dismissed his application. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR