Karnataka High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Absence of repair bills does not defeat a vehicle-damage claim supported by survey evidence.

SHRI. SHIVANNA S/O MANJAPPA GADDAD vs RAJESH S/O GOPAL RAIKAR

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 24, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Absence of repair bills does not defeat a vehicle-damage claim supported by survey evidence.. SHRI. SHIVANNA S/O MANJAPPA GADDAD vs RAJESH S/O GOPAL RAIKAR. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appellant owned a motorcycle that was damaged in a collision with a car on 22 February 2018.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, 7–8

He claimed Rs.40,313 for repairs and related expenses, relying on the IMV report, a repair quotation and a survey report.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, 7–8

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000 as global compensation, principally because repair bills had not been produced.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, 7–8

The appellant appealed against the quantum of compensation under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, 7–8
02

Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded for damage to the appellant’s motorcycle was inadequate and should be modified

Source reference: p. 6

2. What order should follow from the determination of that issue

Source reference: pp. 6, 9
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal from an award of a Claims Tribunal.

Source reference: p. 2

The judgment cited no precedent or specific statutory formula for assessing property damage.

Source reference: pp. 7–8

Its stated approach was to assess the claimed loss against the evidence of damage and the supporting survey material; the absence of repair bills was not, by itself, a sufficient ground to reject a claim where damage was otherwise established.

Source reference: pp. 7–8
04

Reasoning

The IMV report recorded extensive damage to the motorcycle, and the survey report and quotation provided material for assessing the loss.

Source reference: pp. 6–7

Although the appellant had not produced repair bills to prove that he incurred the full amount claimed, the damage was undisputed and the motorcycle required repair before it could be used.

Source reference: pp. 7–9

The Court therefore found the Tribunal’s global award of Rs.10,000 inadequate and, having considered the survey report, assessed compensation at Rs.23,313.

Source reference: pp. 7–9
05

Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

The Tribunal’s award was modified, and compensation was fixed at Rs.23,313 instead of Rs.10,000.

Source reference: p. 9

The enhanced amount was to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until payment, and the insurer was directed to deposit it with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment.

Source reference: p. 9
06

Acts & Sections Cited

3 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881

Indian Penal Code, 18602

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SHRI. SHIVANNA S/O MANJAPPA GADDADvsRAJESH S/O GOPAL RAIKAR

Karnataka High Court · September 24, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment