AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, J.—MFA No. 31807/2009 been filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the judgment passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 769/2006 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,14,910/- and MFA N6. 31806/2009 been filed challenging the judgment passed in MVC No. 768/2006 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- with interest.
The facts leading to these appeals are that the claim petitions have been filed by the respective claimants claiming compensation for the vehicle damage and damages to the goods in the vehicle. The claim petitions have been allowed by the Tribunal on 01.08.2009.
The Claimants state before the Tribunal that the vehicle lorry bearing No. KA-23/3140 belongs to claimant in MVC No. 768/2006 which was damaged in the accident. The facts of the case are that on 17.06.2006 when the lorry was proceeding towards Muddebihal from Bijapur with load of iron windows and cement bricks etc. and at about 09.30 p.m. when the lorry was near Nandyal Cross, another lorry bearing No. KA-25/A-4755 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and also in a high speed dashed against the lorry bearing No. KA-23/3140, resulting in lorry of the claimant suffered damages anti also goods have been damaged. He further states that he registered a complaint against the offending lorry bearing No, KA25/A-4755 at Managuli police station in Crime No. 54/2006. Since from the date of accident, the claimant''s lorry was kept idle for repairs and incurred loss of Rs.2.00 lakh been sustained due to the accident. He made prayer for awarding compensation of Rs.3.00 lakh with interest to the damage of the vehicle. Similarly, the claimant in MVC No. 769/2006 registered the claim petition for the damage to the goods in the vehicle. He claimed compensation of Rs.1.50 lakh with interest.
The grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that after the accident the claimant not informed the insurer as required under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If the insurer been informed, they would have been deputed the surveyor to ascertain the damages. Secondly, the surveyor report not been obtained to assess the damages. For the repairs undertaken garage was not standing in the name who issued the bill, who been examined as PW 2. Despite of this defect the Tribunal committed an error. With regard to said ground I have examined the reasons assigned which are available in the file. It been stated that "the vehicle itself purced for an amount of Rs.2,62,000/- and damage of Rs.2,00,000/-, but he had not produced any materials to prove the same. However the Tribunal by referring the evidence of PW 2 and also the case papers pertaining to criminal case registered against the offending lorry in Crime No. 54/2006 at Managuli police station, awarded global compensation of Rs. 1.50 lakh. The submission of the Insurance Company that the surveyor not been examined and there is violation of Section 151 of Motor Vehicles Act, though it is well founded, but that itself is not sufficient to reject the claim petition. In order to make a claim there shall be registration of the police case establishing the accident. Unless the motor vehicle accident is established, there cannot be claim under Motor Vehicles Act. In the instant case, the claimant registered a crime against offending vehicle and he produced FIR as per Ex.P-1 along with complaint, spot mahazar Ex.P-2 and IMV report Ex.P-3 also been produced. Further the claimant also produced extract of registration particulars at Exs.P-7 and P-8. When these materials are available before the Tribunal, two things would have been done, namely the Tribunal should have directed the petitioner to produce survey report. On the other hand, the Insurance Company itself might have made necessary application seeking direction to produce or to obtain surveyor report in order to assess the damages. Both the claimant as well as the Insurance Company have committed an error in not producing and not filing necessary application for appointment of surveyor and report as to the damages. Though I found that Section 151 of the Motor Vehicles Act not been complied, but I am not inclined to interfere with the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation to the claimant in MFA No. 30807/2009.
In the connected appeal in MFA No. 3 1806/2009 is filed against the award passed for damages to the goods in the vehicle. The main ground urged by the appellant Insurance Company is that the owner of the goods not been examined. The damages is also not proved. In the light of the grounds urged, I have gone through Ex.P-2 spot mahazar in which there was reference of goods found in the accident spot namely concrete frames, iron rods, bricks etc. Since the claimant not made available the value of the said goods, awarding of Rs. 1,14,910/- is on the higher side, therefore, it to be reduced to Rs.75,000/-.
With these observations, I pass the following:
ORDER
M.F.A. No. 31806/2009 is rejected.
M.F.A. No. 31807/2009 is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 769/2006 is modified. The Respondent No. 1/claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal.