Karnataka High Court
MFA/8310/2023 of SHRI. N MUNIYAPPA Vs SHRI. GIRI N H H on 25 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010657762023 NC: 2026:KHC:45783 MFA No. 8310 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8310 OF 2023 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: SHRI. N. MUNIYAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8310 OF 2023 (MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. N. MUNIYAPPA
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 118,
BEHIND GOVT., SCHOOL,
DASENAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA,
BENGALURU - 88.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAIK KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SHRI. GIRI N.H.H
S/O N.H.HONNAIAH,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO. 797, 9TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 079.
(OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING REG.
NO. KA-02-MG-7355)
2.
THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
(MERGED BY BHARTI AXA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD.)
NO. 121, THE ESTATE, 9TH FLOOR,
DICKENSON ROAD, M G ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
(POLICY NO. HAX/S6803615
VALID FROM 26-09-2019
TO 25-09-2020)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.PRADEEP ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.01.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.
2112/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DISMISSING
THE
CLAIM
PETITION
FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Claimant, assailing the Judgment and Award dated 10.01.2023, passed by the VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru1 in MVC No.2112/2021.
1 the Tribunal, for short
HC-KAR
2. The Tribunal under the impugned Judgment and Award, dismissed the claim petition, on the premise that the claimant has failed to prove the damage sustained to the vehicle and the expenditure incurred.
3. Heard, Sri.Naik Krishna Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.B.Ravindra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurer.
4. Sri.V.K.Naik, with all vehemence submits that the claimant has been examined as PW.1 and produced the estimate of expenditure as per Ex.P12, approximately costing Rs.1,20,516/-. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter and in an haste, dismissed the petition.
5. Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, with all vehemence submits that though Ex.P.12 is produced, however the author of the document has not been examined to corroborate the said document. The Tribunal has properly
HC-KAR
considered the evidentiary value of Ex.P12 in the absence of corroborative evidence and rightly dismissed the petition. Hence, the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court perused the entire appeal papers.
7. As seen from paragraph No.20 of the Judgment of the Tribunal, though the claimant has been examined as PW.1 and produced Ex.P12, however there is no corroborative evidence to support the said document, by its author to substantiate the estimate made in the said document. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly considered the material placed on record and dismissed the claim petition. This Court finds no error to interfere with the said Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
HC-KAR
8. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16