Case Title: Hemanth Raju AND Punitha H J and Another
Summary
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that if the insurer of a damaged vehicle fails to reimburse the entire cost of repairs following a motor accident, the claimant may petition the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to obtain an order for payment of the remaining balance. A taxi proprietor, who relied on his taxi service, requested Rs. 2,000,000 in damages for the losses incurred. The insurance company for the negligent vehicle opposed the appeal, arguing that the claimant was not entitled to a reimbursement for the exact amount received. The court determined that the insurer of the negligent vehicle bears responsibility for the remaining balance, amounting to Rs. 33,324. The court ordered the owner and insurer of the negligent vehicle to make a joint and several payments of Rs.53,324, inclusive of interest.
About the case
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that if the insurer of the damaged vehicle fails to reimburse the entire cost of repairs following a motor accident, the claimant may petition the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to obtain an order for payment of the remaining balance from the insurer of the negligent vehicle. One such claimant, a taxi proprietor, had his appeal partially granted by a single judge bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha against the Tribunal’s order rejecting his claim. It stated, “The claimant is not entitled to a reimbursement from the insurer of the negligent vehicle for the exact amount that he received from his insurer for damages to the vehicle.”
Nevertheless, in the event that the insurer fails to reimburse the entire sum, the plaintiff shall possess complete standing to petition the Tribunal for an injunction compelling the insurer of the negligent vehicle to reimburse the remaining balance. The appellant stated that his only source of income was taxi service and requested Rs. 2,000,000 in damages for the losses incurred as a result of the accident. According to him, his insurer failed to reimburse the complete sum that he expended on repairs. The insurance company for the negligent vehicle opposed the appeal, arguing that since the appellant’s insurer had already paid Rs.78,000 in full and final settlement of the claim, it is unjustifiable to reclaim the same amount. Upon reviewing the records, the bench determined that the appellant’s insurer had not compensated him for the complete loss incurred. “It is also evident that the appellant was obligated to pay the remaining balance to have his vehicle reinstated on the road.”
The causal connection between the accident and the driver of respondent No. 1’s impulsive and negligent behavior is beyond dispute. Consequently, this court concludes that the second respondent, the insurer of the negligent vehicle, bears responsibility for the remaining balance. As per the discourse, the outstanding balance amounts to Rs. 33,324.” With respect to the appellant’s request for compensation for lost wages, the court observed that the invoices submitted by the appellant were unsigned and failed to identify the issuer. Therefore, considering the lack of tangible evidence regarding the earnings generated from his minicab service, the court ascertained his nominal income and calculated his earnings loss to be Rs. 20,000. As a result, the court ordered the owner and insurer of the negligent vehicle to make a joint and several payments of Rs.53,324, inclusive of interest. A portion of the document stated, “When a vehicle in use is damaged as a result of the actions of others, and proof is presented that the vehicle owner was unable to generate income during the time it took to have the vehicle repaired, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is obligated to compensate the vehicle owner for the loss incurred as a result of the non-utilization of the vehicle for income generation.”
