- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30175-DB MFA No. 3552 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3552/2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. M/S FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.18/1, OLD NO.125/A, 3RD FLOOR, ABOVE E-ZONE, ASHOKA PILLAR ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560011, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER. POLICY ISSUED OFFICE: 2ND FLOOR, KABURGI LAND MART, OPP. T.B.GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI-580029. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI J G SHESHASAAYEE S/O LATE P. GAJAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.10A, AASHIYANA, ELANGO STREET, RAMANA NAGAR, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI-600011 Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30175-DB MFA No. 3552 of 2016 AT PRESENT: NO.405, HOODI MAIN ROAD, HOODI, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560064. 2. SRI T.V.SREENIVASA S/O KRISHNAIAH SHETTY, MADDUR ROAD, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K V GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.6134/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 24TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.66,45,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30175-DB MFA No. 3552 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant. 2. This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MVC No.6134/2013 on the grounds of liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case as set out in the claim petition are that, on 08.10.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. respondent No.1- claimant was travelling as a passenger in the car bearing Registration No.KA-51/F-24 on NH.48 road and when the car reached near Kothipura Village, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District, a TATA Ace vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-06/ C-3537 came and dashed against the car as a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30175-DB MFA No. 3552 of 2016 taken to Government Hospital, Kunigal for first aid and from there, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 4. The tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, granted total compensation of Rs.66,45,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the insurance company has preferred this appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company vehemently contended that the tribunal, without considering the documentary evidence on record, has fixed the income of the appellant at Rs.2,00,000/- per month and erred in holding that the claimant has suffered 10% disability. The driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective licence as on the date of the accident and hence, there is violation of policy conditions. Further, the claimant has not impleaded the insurer of the car bearing Registration No.KA-51/F-24 as a party and hence, the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. The tribunal has erred in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30175-DB MFA No. 3552 of 2016 taking the multiplier of 12 instead of 11 as the age of the claimant was 51 years as on the date of the accident. The tribunal awarded an exorbitant compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- under the head 'future medical expenses' and Rs.14,00,000/- under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. The tribunal has also erred in awarding 9% interest per annum which is exorbitant one and on these grounds, learned counsel submits that the same requires interference by this Court. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant contended that the tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has granted fair and reasonable compensation and hence, no interference is called for in this appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the following point arises for our consideration, Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side and/or requires to be reduced? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30175-DB MFA No. 3552 of 2016 8. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, the counsel for appellant contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the Drivers of both the vehicles, but the claimants have made an allegation against the Driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA 06/C-3537. We have perused the charge sheet (Ex.P6), it clearly demonstrates that, the Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation filed charge sheet against the Driver of Tata Ace and has not made any allegation against Driver of car bearing Registration No.KA 51/F-24. 9. Moreover, witnesses have clearly stated that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the Driver of Tata Ace. The Insurance Company has not challenged the contents of charge sheet and hence, the question of impleading insurer of car would not arise. More importantly, the Insurance company has not attempted in impleading the Insurer of the car. Hence, the Insurer of car is not necessary party. Thus, there is no merit consideration in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30175-DB MFA No. 3552 of 2016 10. The Insurance Company took contentions that the Driver of Tata Ace was not possessing valid driving license as on the date of accident, hence, there is a violation of policy conditions. Admittedly, the charge sheet does not disclose that the driver of Tata Ace vehicle was not possessing valid driving license as on the date of accident. Except taking contentions, the Insurer has not produced any material and led any evidence to substantiate that the Driver of Tata Ace vehicle was not possessing valid DL. Hence, there is no merit in consideration. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after perusing the judgment and award of the tribunal, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side under the heads 'future medical expenses' and 'loss of income during laid up period', are concerned, same has to be reduced. 12. As per the case of the claimant, he sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent physical disability. As per the wound certificate-Ex.P.5, respondent No.1- claimant sustained the following injuries; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30175-DB MFA No. 3552 of 2016 1. Fracture left Olecranon 2. Supra condylar fracture both the femur 3. Fracture left Patela 4. Left eyebrow laceration with multiple facial abrasions. 13. To substantiate his case, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also got examined Dr. R. Raghavendra Reddy as P.W.2. The doctor has stated that the injuries suffered by the claimant resulted in permanent disability and the percentage of disability is 24% to the whole body. However, the tribunal has considered the disability at 10% to the whole body, which is fair and reasonable. 14. The claimant has stated that prior to the accident, he was a Managing Director of Talentree Education Private Limited, Chennai and was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month. In order to substantiate his contention, he has produced the Letter of Appointment as per Ex.P.16 and Pay Slips as per Ex.P.17. Ex.P.16 discloses that the claimant was appointed as Director- Talent Development with effect from 01.07.2012 and his salary was Rs.30,00,000/- per annum out of which, Rs.4,50,000/- was performance based component. The tribunal, considering the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30175-DB MFA No. 3552 of 2016 letter of appointment and the pay slips, has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.2,00,000/- per month, which is fair and reasonable and no interference is called for in that regard. 15. So far as future medical expenses is concerned, the tribunal awarded Rs.9,00,000/- without any basis. No doubt, the claimant was admitted as inpatient in hospital and has spent some amount. Thus, it is just and necessary to reduce the future medical expenses from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.4,50,000/-. 16. Insofar as loss of income during laid up period is concerned, the tribunal granted a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- without any basis. Once the income of the claimant is arrived at Rs.2,00,000/- per month, it is just and proper to award loss of income for the laid up period of three months only. Hence, the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of income during laid up period' is reduced from Rs.14,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-. 17. In so far as interest is concerned, Section 34 of CPC being squarely applicable to the interest awarded by the tribunal and Section 34 of CPC empowers the tribunal to award - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30175-DB MFA No. 3552 of 2016 pendente lite interest and discretion being vested with the Court/tribunal to award interest from the date of suit or petition is to the maximum extent of 6% p.a. or in other words, not exceeding 6% p.a., the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company deserves to be accepted and accordingly, it is accepted. Hence, interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% is reduced to 6%. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award passed by the tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. iii) Respondent No.1-claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.53,95,000/- as against Rs. 66,45,000/- awarded by the tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. iv) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30175-DB MFA No. 3552 of 2016 v) The amount in deposit be transferred to the tribunal and the tribunal is directed to disburse the amount as per the modified award. vi) Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed off as not surviving for consideration. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with its records, forthwith. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54