This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short 8the M.V.Act9) by the

claimant being dissatisfied with the judgment and award

dated 24.11.2018 passed in MVC No.1610/2017 on the file

of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT (SCCH-5),

Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred to with their original rankings occupied by

them before the Tribunal.

3

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that on 07.03.2016 at 00.30 a.m., the driver of the Toyota

Qualis Car bearing No.KA-05/D-3819 belonging to the

claimant/appellant

was

driving

the

same

carefully,

cautiously and observing traffic rules, near Anjanapura

Tank bund in Bengaluru City. It is further asserted that all

of a sudden, the driver of a Toyota Etios Car bearing

Reg.No.KA-03/AC-0560 drove it in a high speed and in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

claimant's vehicle resulting in heavy damages to the

several parts of the vehicle of the claimant. In this regard,

the claimant has lodged a complaint with Thalaghattapura

Police Station, Bengaluru City and the IMV Inspector

inspected the damages caused by submitting a report. The

claimant has taken estimation from J.K.Motors, in BSK 6th

Stage, Kanakapura Main Road to the tune of Rs.5,04,347/-

towards replacement of the spare parts and repair

charges, and the claimant purchased those parts and he

incurred the repair charges to the extent of Rs.4,05,357/-.

Hence, he has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of

4

the M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- with

interest thereon from the respondents.

4.

In response to the summons, respondents

have contested the matter and sought for dismissal of the

petition.

5. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral as well as

the

documentary

evidence

has

awarded

a

total

compensation of Rs.2,24,000/-. But however, the driver of

the

claimant's

vehicle

was

fastened

contributory

negligence to the extent of 10% and after deducting

Rs.22,400/-, a compensation of Rs.2,02,000/- came to be

awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum under

the following heads:

Total pecuniary loss

because of the damage to

the car

Rs.1,84,000/-

Towards pecuniary loss

due to inconvenience for

availability fo the car for a

period of one month

Rs.20,000/-

Incidental expenses

Rs.10,000/-

5

Mental shock and physical

pain

Rs.10,000/-

Total

Less 10% of contributory

negligence

Rs.2,24,000/-

Rs. 22,400/-

Grand total

Rounded off to

Rs.2,01,600/-

Rs.2,02,000/-

Being dissatisfied with this judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal, the claimant/appellant is before

this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

6.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for claimant/appellant and learned counsel for

respondent No.1/insurance company. Perused the records.

7.

The learned counsel for claimant/appellant

would contend that he has got surveyed his vehicle and

the surveyor has certified the estimation given by the J.K.

Motors. However, the Tribunal has awarded a meager

compensation and hence, he would seek for enhancement

of compensation. In this context, he has also placed

reliance on a decision reported in 1997 ACJ 245 in the

6

case of M.R.Narahari Pandit v. Veenadevi Jalan and

another..

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1/insurance company would contend that in fact there is

head on collision between the two vehicles and the driver of

the vehicle of the claimant has also contributed to the

extent of 50% but the Tribunal has taken the same at 10%

only. He would further contend that though the Surveyor

was examined, the estimation made by J.K.Motors and the

bills relied by the claimant/appellant, cannot be taken note

of as the Authors of these documents were not examined.

He would further submit that as admitted by the Surveyor,

the total value of the vehicle itself was Rs.1,84,000/- and

Surveyor also admitted in his cross-examination even if