Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J
Bmtc Central Office – Appellant
Versus
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
M.F.A. NO. 3567 OF 2022 (MV-DM)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SMT. RADHA B. P., ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MAHESH K.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2
Claimants must provide substantial evidence of damages and loss of income for compensation in vehicle accident cases.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The appeal challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order awarding Rs.83,293/- for damages to a bus after an accident. The appellant sought Rs.3,00,000/- based on loss of income due to repairs. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
(B) Compensation - The claimant must establish specific facts regarding vehicle damage and loss of income. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence for the claimed repair duration and loss, leading to the awarded amount. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Evidence - The appellant failed to demonstrate the necessity of the claimed repair time and that the vehicle was idle, impacting the claim's validity. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's bus was damaged in an accident caused by another bus, leading to a claim for compensation based on alleged income loss during repairs.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's award of Rs.83,293/- was upheld as just and reasonable, with no compelling evidence for a higher claim.
Issues: Whether the appellant provided adequate proof of loss and repair duration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate claims for damages and loss of income.
Result: Appeal dismissed without costs.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Disputing the validity and legality of the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.6422/2019 dated 13.12.2021, the present appeal is filed.
2. Heard Smt.Radha.B.P, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Prdeep.B, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 did not choose to submit his contentions.
3. On the ground that its bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-1261 met with a road traffic accident due to which the vehicle got damaged and thereby loss, if quantified, to a tune of Rs.3,00,000/- is sustained, the appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.83,293/- as compensation towards damages. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
4. The matrix of the case as projected by the appellant before the Tribunal is that on 27.07.2018 at about 9.05 a.m. while its driver was driving the Volvo bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-1261 from Madanayakanahalli to Manyatha Tech Park and when the bus reached near Kodegenahalli Gate, the driver of Ashok Leyland bus bearing registration No.KA-43-5109 drove the said bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against its bus due to which the bus was badly damaged. The bus was kept in workshop for repairs for more than 13 days and thereby huge loss was sustained.
5. Arguing the matter, Smt.B.P.Radha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that through operation of the bus in question, the appellant was earning Rs.12,844/- per day. The bus was kept at workshop for more than 13 days for effecting the required repairs. Thereby the appellant sustained loss of Rs.12,844/- each day. Though through the evidence of Pw.3 and Ex.P10 - Income and Loss statement, the appellant established the loss sustained, without appreciating the same, the Tribunal awarded meager sum of Rs.83,293/- towards damages and therefore, awarding the sum claimed, the appeal may be allowed.
6. The submission that is made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sri.Pradeep.B on the other hand is that the total loss sustained by the appellant itself is Rs.9,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.83,293/- as damages and thus the appeal itself is not maintainable. Learned counsel also stated that for effecting the required repairs, one day is more than sufficient. Learned counsel also contended that the witnesses who were produced by the appellant, during the course of cross examination clearly admitted that the spare buses were available at the relevant period which itself establishes that the appellant did not sustain any loss. Learned counsel also contended that as loss of revenue was not established before the Tribunal, the appellant is not entitled for any further sum towards damages. In support of the submission thus made, learned counsel for respondent No.1 placed reliance upon the decision that is rendered by this Court of Dharwad Bench in the case between North West Karnataka Transport Corporation vs. Pushpaja and Another in MFA No.22143/2009 dated 10.01.2014.
7. For claiming any sum towards damages due to disfunction or malfunction of a vehicle and the resultant loss sustained, the claimant is required to establish in certain terms the following facts:
(i) That the vehicle in question was damaged in the course of accident.
(ii) The extent of damage caused to each part of the vehicle.
(iii) Exact time that is required to be spent for effecting the required repairs.
(iv) The sum incurred for effecting such repairs including replacement of damaged parts through spare parts if any and payment of charges to the mechanic for effecting those repairs.
(v) Amount if any spent for shifting the vehicle from the place of accident to the Garage.
(vi) The sum which was being earned through use of said vehicle.
(vii) The expenditure that was being incurred per day for plying the said vehicle on road including its maintenance.
(viii) The ne
