Karnataka HC Rejects Insurer’s Bid To Cut Ambulance-Damage Award, Upholds Repair And 3-Month Idling Compensation

The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for damage to an ambulance involved in a collision with a car insured by the appellant.

The Tribunal found the car driver negligent and awarded compensation for repair costs, idling charges and inconvenience.

It directed the insurer to pay first and recover from the insured because the driver’s licence had expired on the accident date.

The insurer appealed, challenging only the quantum of compensation.

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal under Section 173(1) of that Act.

The Court stated no separate statutory formula or precedent for assessing vehicle-damage compensation.

Its assessment proceeded on the evidentiary basis of documented repair costs and supported consequential losses, including idling charges.

The Court confined its review to quantum, noting that the accident, damage to the ambulance and the insurer’s liability to pay were not in dispute.

The claimant relied on vehicle and repair documents and testimony from the insurer’s official and surveyor; the surveyor assessed the claimant’s loss at Rs. 1,20,758, which the Tribunal awarded as repair costs.

The Court considered the Tribunal’s reliance on the ambulance’s insured value and the evidence of repair expenditure sufficient to reject the insurer’s challenge based on the vehicle’s age and depreciation.

It also found the awards of Rs. 20,000 for idling charges and Rs. 10,000 for inconvenience during repairs not unsubstantiated or excessive.

It directed that the amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal, that any balance be deposited within six weeks, and that the compensation with interest be released to the claimant.