- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499682016 NC: 2026:KHC:38254 MFA No. 6768 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6768 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI BRANCH OFFICE SITUATED AT NO. 25/1, 2ND FLOOR, SHANKANARAYANA BUILDING, NO.2, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 BY IT’S MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH. ,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VASANTHA KUMARI.R W/O S. KRISHANA SIDDACHARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1622, 1ST ‘B’ CROSS, 3RD MAIN, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 040. 2. VISHWESH .J S/O JANARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, NO. 1/1, SHREE SIDDI VINAYAKA, 17TH MAIN, MRCR LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499682016 NC: 2026:KHC:38254 MFA No. 6768 of 2016 (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. B. KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 16.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.346/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & 19TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,08,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 16.04.2016 passed by XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-23) at Bengaluru in M.V.C.No.346 of 2015. 2. Injured claimant met with an accident on 19.04.2013 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-. The tribunal, considering entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.12,08,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the deposit. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499682016 NC: 2026:KHC:38254 MFA No. 6768 of 2016 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Divisional Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, filed this appeal and mainly contended that there was no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 134(C) of the MV Act either by the insured or of Section 158(6) of the MV Act both by the insured and concerned investigating officer. It is contended that statement of the injured-claimant under Exhibit P1 was recorded by police at 12.45 p.m. at Hosmat Hospital. Exhibit P4 spot sketch and Exhibit P5 spot mahazar were drawn on 19.04.2013 between 03.45 and 04.45 p.m. in the presence of Venkatesh, who is an eyewitness, but he was not examined. There was no direct positive evidence to show the involvement of the vehicle and manner of accident. It is further stated that claimant is not entitled for loss of income during the period of 10 months. The medical bills under serial No.125 and No.126 are duplicate and she had received medical expenses and hospital charges from the insurance company under Medi claim policy, but avoided to produce records thereof to claim the balance, which is necessary to get the money. Thus, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499682016 NC: 2026:KHC:38254 MFA No. 6768 of 2016 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. Petitioner was aged 51 years and she was doing business and she is an income tax assessee. She filed her IT returns for the years 2012-13 with a gross income of Rs.5,09,586/- and for the years 2013-14 with a gross income of Rs.11,64,420/-. As the accident was occurred on 19.04.2013, the tribunal has considered the IT returns of 2012- 13 and taken her income as Rs.42,465/- per month and thus, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. 6. Petitioner filed Exhibit P6 wound certificate and also four discharge summaries under Exhibit P8 and filed some prescriptions of inpatient and outpatient records. Petitioner also examined a doctor as P.W.2 and he stated that the petitioner sustained type 3 open fracture on her right leg with exposure of right muscle and bone periosteal stripping communition and contamination and other parts of the body. Her right leg is shortened due to fractures and there was also a disfigurement. She took treatment for 10 months. As per the discharge - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499682016 NC: 2026:KHC:38254 MFA No. 6768 of 2016 summary, the doctor assessed the whole body disability as 20%. The Tribunal considered income tax returns filed by the petitioner and it was held that her income was increased to Rs.11,64,420/- and she continued her business even after the accident. Therefore, it cannot be said that she has suffered any loss of income due to the injuries sustained in the accident and held that she is not entitled for any amount under the head loss of future earning capacity. 7. In this connection, learned counsel for respondent- claimant relied upon the citation in the case of Sunil Kumar and others Vs G. Bhuvaneshwari and others decided in MFA No.1479 of 2025 and connected matters on 10.03.2026, in which it was observed that the claimant produced IT returns for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19. The tribunal considered the aggregate income of three years. There is no dispute on the proposition that the income tax returns is the best proof of income. The income disclosed in the return can form the best foundation for assessment of compensation. The income at the time of accident is to be considered for computing the compensation. Therefore, the said finding of the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499682016 NC: 2026:KHC:38254 MFA No. 6768 of 2016 tribunal in respect of loss of future earning capacity is confirmed. 8. The tribunal granted an amount of Rs.4,24,650/- for loss of income for a period of 10 months when she was under the treatment and the said amount is confirmed. The tribunal also granted Rs.7,48,750/- towards medical expenses. The main contention of the appellant herein is that petitioner already made the claim under Medi claim policy and she is not entitled for said amount, as per the citation in the case New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Dolly Satish Gandhi & Another reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 861, decided in Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18267 of 2025), according to Mediclaim policy this court finds that the Tribunal has rightly considered and granted reasonable amount. “15. In fine, we hold that the amount received as part of Mediclaim/medical insurance is not deductible from compensation as calculated by the concerned Tribunal, adjudicating a claim for compensation under the MVA which may also include compensation under the head of medical expenses, if claimed. These two stand on a different footing - one is statutory while the other - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499682016 NC: 2026:KHC:38254 MFA No. 6768 of 2016 is contractual and the latter is only a sequitur of premiums having been paid in the past while the other is an entitlement as a consequence of an accident or death in a motor vehicle accident.” Thus, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.7,48,750/- towards medical expenses and it is confirmed. 9. Learned counsel respondent has counsel relied upon citations reported in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mr. Alwin Lobo and Another decided in MFA No.8449 of 2015 on 19.10.2022, in which it is contended that when the tribunal has not accepted the disability, it is a fit case to exercise powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC to enhance the compensation. 10. The Tribunal has rightly granted compensation under all the heads and this Courts finds no reason to interfere with the said award of the Tribunal. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award of the Tribunal. The claimant is entitled for the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499682016 NC: 2026:KHC:38254 MFA No. 6768 of 2016 compensation of Rs.12,08,400/- with interest at 6% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance company might have deposited 50% of the compensation and therefore, they are directed to deposit the balance amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued thereon. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51