[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Kishore T vs The Tata Aig General Insurance Co Ltd on 6 March, 2026

                                               -1-
                                                          NC: 2026:KHC:13787
                                                        M.F.A. No.2644/2020


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                            BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2644/2020 (MV-I)


                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. KISHORE .T
                   S/O THIMMARAJU J
                   AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
                   NO.16, 1ST CROSS, 10TH MAIN
                   T.R. SHAMANNANAGAR, SRINAGAR
                   BANGALORE 560050.
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA         AND ALSO AT NO.622,
BAHAR KHANAM       4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
Location: HIGH     HANUMANTHANAGAR
COURT OF           BANGALORE 560019.
KARNATAKA
                                                                ...APPELLANT

                   (BY SRI. YOGESHA G.K. ADV.,)


                   AND:

                   1.    THE TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                         REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER
                         NO.363, 12TH MAIN ROAD
                         DR. RAJAKUMAR ROAD
                         RAJAJINAGAR 6TH BLOCK
                         BANGALORE 560001.


                   2.    SRI. K. GOPAL
                         S/O KRISHNAPPA A
                         NO.60, 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
                         NEAR KOLLAPURADAMMA TEMPLE
                         JAGAJEEVANARAM NAGAR
                               -2-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC:13787
                                        M.F.A. No.2644/2020


HC-KAR




    CHAMARAJAPET,
    BANGALORE 560018.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV., FOR R1
V/O/DTD:22.03.2022 NOTICE TO R2 D/W)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3433/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, C/c XIII
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
CITY, SCCH-15, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION       AND     SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT      OF
COMPENSATION.


    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the

judgment and award dated 18.11.2019 passed in

MVC.No.3433/2018 by the Member, MACT, XIII Additional

Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (for short,

'Tribunal').

NC: 2026:KHC:13787

HC-KAR

2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken

up for final disposal.

3. Sri.Yogesha G.K., learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave

error in recording the finding with regard to the

contributory negligence of the appellant by ignoring the

charge sheet material and without assigning any reasons.

Hence, he seeks to reverse the said finding. It is submitted

that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation

under the head of loss of income due to disability by

ignoring the evidence of Doctor-PW3 and other medical

evidence on record. It is further submitted that the

Tribunal has awarded meager compensation on all other

heads, hence he seeks to enhance the compensation

appropriately by allowing this appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.Janardhan Reddy, learned

counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned

NC: 2026:KHC:13787

HC-KAR

judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the

accident in question is a head on collision and considering

the said aspect, the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding

and held that the appellant has contributed to the accident

to an extent of 15%. The said finding is based on the

evidence available on record and the same does not call

for any interference. It is submitted that insofar as the

award of compensation under the head of loss of future

income due to disability is concerned, the same would not

arise as the petitioner-claimant himself has admitted in his

evidence that he continued with the same job even after

the accident and in view of the said evidence, there cannot

be any compensation under the aforesaid head. Hence, he

seeks to dismiss the appeal.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing on both the sides and meticulously

perused the material available on record including the

Tribunal records.

NC: 2026:KHC:13787

HC-KAR

6. It is not in dispute that the appellant-claimant

met with a road accident on 06.06.2018 and suffered a

fracture of laceration shaft right femur and lacerated

wound over knee, which is evident from the discharge

summary as per Ex.P10 issued by Shekhar Hospital,

Bengaluru, as well as wound certificate Ex.P5. The Doctor

has assessed the disability of the claimant-injured at 14%

to the whole body. The Tribunal declined to grant any

compensation under the head of loss of income due to

disability on the ground that the appellant-claimant has

failed to prove before the Tribunal that he has lost the

employment due to disability suffered in the aforesaid road

accident. The Tribunal recorded the finding in detail at

para No.17 to decline the compensation towards loss of

future income due to disability, I do not find any error in

the said finding.

7. Insofar as the contributory negligence is

concerned, the Tribunal has recorded the finding at para

No.12 that the appellant was negligent and contributed to

NC: 2026:KHC:13787

HC-KAR

the accident to an extent of 15%. The perusal of the said

reasoning at para No.12 of the impugned judgment are

not satisfactory, the said reasoning by the Tribunal is

without any basis and contrary to the evidence on record.

It is not in dispute that the Police, after investigation, filed

a charge sheet against the driver of the autorikshaw,

which was insured with the respondent-insurance

company. Without any evidence of contributory negligence

by the appellant-claimant, the Tribunal jumped to a

conclusion that the appellant was negligent and

contributed to the accident to an extent of 15%, but the

same is without any basis and the same is required to be

interfered in this appeal and accordingly the said finding

on contributory negligence of the appellant-claimant is set

aside.

8. It is to be noticed that the appellant was aged

about 19 years at the time of accident. The doctor has

assessed the disability of the claimant at 14% and he was

in-patient for a period of 3 days, considering the said

NC: 2026:KHC:13787

HC-KAR

aspects, I am of the considered view that the

compensation is required to be re-assessed appropriately.

Hence, the appellant would be entitled to compensation of

Rs.40,000/- towards pain & suffering; Rs.15,000/-

towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant

charges; Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500 X 3) towards loss of

income during the laid up period. The compensation

awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, loss of

amenities and future medical expenses remain unaltered.

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to the modified

compensation as under:

                        HEADS                            AMOUNT
                                                         (in Rs.)
    Pain & suffering                                          40,000
    Food, nourishment,          conveyance      and          15,000
    attendant charges
    Medical expenses                                        1,03,000
    Loss of income during laid up period                     37,500
    Loss of amenities                                        75,000
    Future medical expenses                                  10,000
                        Total                              2,80,500

                                             NC: 2026:KHC:13787



HC-KAR

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a

total compensation of Rs.2,80,500/- as against

Rs.2,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

9. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

a) Appeal is allowed in part.

b) The impugned judgment and award of the

Tribunal is modified to an extent that the

appellant-claimant would be entitled to a

total compensation of Rs.2,80,500/- as

against Rs.2,48,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

c) The enhanced compensation amount shall

carry interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of petition till the

date of payment.

d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the

entire compensation amount with accrued

NC: 2026:KHC:13787

HC-KAR

interest before the Tribunal within a

period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this judgment.