M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs DR BHASKAR ACHARYA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61644
MFA No. 4358 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010336712016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4358 OF 2016(MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI B S UMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR BHASKAR ACHARYA
S/O N.RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
DIRECTOR DR.N.R.ACHARYA MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL, N.H.-17
KOTESHWARA
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 222.
2. SHANKARA ACHARYA
S/O NAGAPPA ACHARYA
AGE MAJOR EXACT NOW KNOWN TO APPELLANT
RETIRED REVENUE INSPECTOR,
KOKKARNE POST
UDUPI TALUK
& DISTRICT-576 234.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI UDAYA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61644
MFA No. 4358 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010336712016
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.3.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.558/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER,
ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,50,760/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT
IN THE TRIBUNAL.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 14.03.2016
passed by Senior Civil Judge, Member - Addl. MACT,
Kundapura, in MVC no.558/2013, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri BS Umesh, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging award on
quantum. Brief facts leading to this appeal as per claimant were
that at 6:00 p.m. on 18.11.2012 Purushothama was driving
ambulance no.KA-20/B-188 towards Manipal, when near
Uppoor village, car no.KA-20/P-956 driven by its driver in rash
and negligent manner dashed against ambulance and caused
accident. Purushothama sustained grievous injuries and though
taken to Mahesh Hospital, Brahmavara, succumbed to same.
Even ambulance was totally damaged. Therefore, MVC
no.558/2013 was filed against owner and insurer of Car for
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61644
MFA No. 4358 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010336712016
damages to ambulance, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
various grounds, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
4. Claimant along with two others deposed as PWs.1
to 3 and Exhibits P1 to P12 were marked. Respondents
examined five witnesses and got marked Exhibits R1 to R9.
5. On consideration, tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Car. But on
ground that driving licence of driver of Car valid from 2009 to
2012 had expired and renewed from 28.11.2012 was not valid
and effective as on date of accident, held insurer liable to pay
compensation to claimant but with liberty to recover it from
insured. Dissatisfied with quantum of compensation, appeal
was filed.
6. It was submitted, as per Ex.P6 - Motor Vehicle
Inspector's Report, value of Ambulance as on date of accident
was Rs.1,72,058/-. Therefore, claim of Rs.2,30,872/- towards
damages itself was grossly excessive. Consequently, award of
Rs.1,50,758/- as compensation would be without considering
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61644
MFA No. 4358 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010336712016
depreciation in value of Car which was of year 2007. Hence, on
ground that compensation awarded was not commensurate to
value of Ambulance, prayed for allowing appeal and reducing
compensation.
7. On other hand, Sri Nagaraja Hegde, learned counsel
for claimant and Smt.Sinchana S., learned counsel appearing
for Sri Udaya Prakash, learned counsel for owner of Car
opposed appeal.
8. It was submitted, evidence on record suggest that
both vehicles sustained extensive damages and claimants had
produced material to substantiate cost of repair. Award was
passed by reference to same. Therefore, award did not warrant
interference and sought dismissal.
9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment and award.
10. From above, only point that arise for consideration
is:
"Whether compensation awarded by Tribunal
was excessive and called for reduction?"
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61644
MFA No. 4358 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010336712016
11. At outset, this appeal is by insurer challenging
quantum of compensation in a vehicle damage claim petition.
There is no dispute about occurrence of accident due to rash
and negligent driving of insured Car by its driver and damages
sustained by Ambulance in said accident. There is also no
challenge of finding of Tribunal about liability of insurer of Car
to pay compensation. Dispute is only about
entitlement/quantum.
12. To substantiate claim for damages, claimants relied
on Registration and Tax Paid Certificates, Estimation, Repair
and Spare Parts Bills, etc., marked as Exs.P4, P5, P8 to P10
and on oral evidence of official of insurer of ambulance as PW.2
and surveyor as PW.3. PW.2 stated about insurance claim
having been filed by owner of ambulance and about its
rejection. PW.3 surveyor not only stated about damages
sustained but also about repair estimation and bills issued by
repairer. He also stated that loss suffered by claimant-owner
was to tune of Rs.1,20,758/-.
13. While passing impugned award tribunal noted that
cross examination of witnesses by insurer was on ground that
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61644
MFA No. 4358 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010336712016
claim was excessive and beyond value of vehicle as it was five
years old and depreciation has to be accounted for. But it noted
Ex.P6 - Insurance Policy of ambulance showed its insured value
at Rs.1,72,058/- to reject insurer's contention. Said reasoning
appears proper considering further deposition of PW.3 that
claimant had paid repair cost of Rs.1,20,758/-, which it
awarded.
14. Even grant of Rs.20,000/- towards idling charges
and Rs.10,000/- towards inconvenience during three months
ambulance was under repair also cannot be stated to be
unsubstantiated or excessive. Hence, point for consideration is
answered in negative. Consequently, following:
ORDER
dismissed
(i) Appeal is confirming
judgment and award dated
14.03.2016 passed by Tribunal in
MVC no.558/2013 directing
appellant - insurer to pay
compensation to claimants in first
instance and thereafter, be at
liberty to recover it from insured
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61644
MFA No. 4358 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010336712016
without recourse to separate
proceedings;
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to
be transmitted to Tribunal for
disbursal;
(iii) Insurer to deposit balance
compensation, if any, before
Tribunal within six weeks;
(iv) On deposit, entire compensation
with interest is ordered to be
released in favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV/YKL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20