- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13747 M.F.A. No.3945/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3945/2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1ST FLOOR, THE FERR'S ICON SURVEY NO.28, DODDANEKUNDI BENGALURU-560037. ALSO AT THE BHATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HOSTO CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, NO.43 MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR OPP. IMPERIAL HOTEL BENGALURU-560046. NOW REP. BY MANAGER LEGAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV.,) AND: LAVANYA W/O MADHU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/O. THRIVENI CIRCLE MYSURU-570029. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHIRAJ B. CHENGTI, ADV.,) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13747 M.F.A. No.3945/2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.38/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,17,754/- OUT OF WHICH RS.10,57,754/- WITH INTEREST AT 8 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. 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 appellant-insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 17.08.2019 passed in MVC.No.38/2018 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Chikkamagaluru, (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 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.Ashok N.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in entertaining - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13747 M.F.A. No.3945/2020 claim petition as the owner of the vehicle i.e., insured, nor the legal representatives of the insured, was arrayed as a party before the Tribunal and on the said ground alone the claim petition ought to have been dismissed. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.15,411/- solely based on Ex.P103 without any corroborative evidence. It is further submitted that the assessment of disability by the Tribunal at 22% also requires to be reduced appropriately as CW2 Doctor has clearly admitted in his evidence that the fracture suffered by the injured has been well-united. He also points out that the very claimant-injured in her cross examination admitted that she has recovered more than 50%. Lastly, he submits that the award of interest at 8% per annum on the compensation amount by the Tribunal is on the higher side and on all these grounds, he submits that the appeal is liable to be allowed. 4. Per contra, Sri.Abhiraj B.Chengti, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant supports the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13747 M.F.A. No.3945/2020 impugned judgment and the award of the Tribunal and submits that Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly states that once the vehicle is insured, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the claimant has made a specific assertion in the claim petition that the claimant-injured was working as an Assistant Professor at Teresian College, Mysuru, and was drawing salary of Rs.15,411/- per month, which has not been denied by the insurance company by producing proper evidence before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Doctor CW2, on examining the injured and after seeing all the records, has assessed the disability of the claimant at 55% to the particular limb and 22% to the whole body, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal and the same does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both sides and meticulously perused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13747 M.F.A. No.3945/2020 the material available on record including the Tribunal records. 6. The contention of the appellant-insurance company is that the claimants have not arrayed the insured as a party before the Tribunal. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold for the simple reason that the claimants in both MVC No.38/2018 and MVC No.39/2018 are not the legal heirs of the insured, hence, such a technical plea of the insurance company has no merit. It is to be noticed that there is no appeal filed by the insurance company insofar as judgment and award in MVC No.39/2018 which has attained finality. Hence on this ground also the plea of maintainability of the claim petition by the claimant is liable to be rejected. 7. Insofar as the assessment of income by the Tribunal is concerned, the claimant has clearly made assertion in the claim petition that she is working as an Assistant Professor at Teresian College, Mysuru and is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13747 M.F.A. No.3945/2020 earning salary of Rs.15,411/- per month. Though in the statement of objection, a general denial is found, however, no effort is made by the appellant-insurance company to disbelieve the said version of the claimant. In addition to what is required to be noticed is that the appellant claimant has produced the salary certificate which is marked as Ex.P103. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding at para No.36 and accepted the said salary certificate. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve Ex.P103 in the absence of any contra evidence before this Court merely on the ground that the claimant has failed to produce any corroborative evidence to corroborate Ex.P103. Hence, the said contention of the insurance company is also rejected. 8. Insofar as the contention with regard to disability is concerned, though Dr.Ajay Hegde, who has been examined as CW2, has deposed that the injuries suffered by the claimant have been well-united. The said aspect cannot be the sole basis to disbelieve the disability - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13747 M.F.A. No.3945/2020 suffered by the claimant, as the claimant has examined CW2, who has clearly deposed with regard to the disability and also produced sufficient documentary evidence before the Tribunal to accept the disability. The Tribunal, on judicious application of mind, appreciated the evidence of CW2 and other documentary evidence. There is no justifiable ground made out to disbelieve the said evidence. Hence, I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record calling for interference in this appeal. Hence, the said contention of the insurance with regard to the disability is also rejected. 9. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount, in my considered view without any justifiable reason the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Normally what is required to be seen is that the interest paid by the nationalized banks on the fixed deposit should be the basis to award the interest. The compensation - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13747 M.F.A. No.3945/2020 amount awarded by the Tribunal is affirmed, however, the claimant is entitled to the interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the amount. 10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified only to the extent that the claimant is entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 11. In modification of the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal to the above extent, the appeal stands partly allowed. Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith along with the amount in deposit, if any. Registry to draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25