The present appeal is against the judgment and

award dated 04.02.2017 passed in MVC No.2158/2013 to

the extent of grant of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for

damages caused to Bolero jeep and fixing of liability on

respondent Nos.1 and 2 to an extent of Rs.1,75,000/-

being 50% thereof. The aforesaid order was passed by

the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT No.V, Vijaypur

by way of a common order. The only question raised in

this appeal is with regard to the quantum of damages

determined by the Tribunal in respect of the Bolero jeep

involved in the accident.

Sri

Babu

H.

Metagudda,

learned

counsel

appearing for the appellant seeking enhancement of the

- 3 -

damages

submits

that

the

appellant

had

claimed

Rs.9,75,000/- as damages and he had produced Ex.P14 –

service quotation issued by one Sutaria Auto Center, who

had quoted bill of Rs.7,40,209/-. That, as against the

same, Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3,25,000/- together

with Rs.25,000/- towards incidental expenses and erred in

directing the insurers to pay only Rs.1,75,000/- being

50% of the damages.

3.

Per contra, Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 - Inurance Company submits that the

vehicle was five years old when the appellant purchased

and admittedly while issuing the policy, the value of the

vehicle was assessed at Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, the

Tribunal based on the aforesaid admitted material

evidence placed on record has assessed the damages to

the

vehicle

at

Rs.3,25,000/-

and

further

awarded

Rs.25,000/- towards incidental expenses, which is just and

proper. Therefore, he submits that no grounds are made

out for interference.

- 4 -

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

5.

There is no dispute with regard to the extent of

damages caused to the vehicle in question. The only issue

is with regard to determination of the quantum of damage

caused to the vehicle. There is also no dispute with regard

to the fact that the insurer had valued the vehicle for

Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of issuance of the policy. There

is no material placed on record to show that whether the

vehicle has been rendered into a scrap. On the other hand,

Ex.P14 relied upon by the appellant is a purported service

cost quotation issued by auto center, which means the

said quotation was issued for repair of the vehicle. In the

light of value of the vehicle being Rs.5,00,000/- assessed

for issuance of insurance policy and in the absence of any

document with regard to the said vehicle having been

rendered scrap, this Court do not see any reason to

interfere with the determination of damages by the

Tribunal at Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- awarded

- 5 -

towards incidental expenses. The judgment and award of

the Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity. No grounds

are made out. Accordingly, appeal is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LG

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17