M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs. SRI K R GOVINDARAJ

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3554 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3554 OF 2019(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
JP & DEVI JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE,
NO.69, MILLERS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 051.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K.R.GOVINDARAJ,
S/O RAMDAS K.T., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KAGGERE VILLAGE,
NAGGEHALLI HOBLI,
ATTIHALLI POST,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
2. SRI. NAVEEN H,
S/O DR. B. HARISH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1851,
TH
26 MAIN ROAD,
TH
40 A CROSS ROAD,
TH
9 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3554 of 2019
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 069.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.S.MURUGENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT);
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17/01/2019, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1549/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT (SIT AT
CHANNARAYAPATNA), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.6,11,250/-, WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A.,
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the judgment and award dated 17.01.2019
passed in MVC No.1549/2017 by the IV Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Hassan, Sitting at Channarayapatna
(for short 'the Tribunal').

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3554 of 2019
HC-KAR
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri Ravi
S. Samprathi, submits that the Tribunal has committed a
grave error in assessing the disability of the injured at
30% which would be contrary to the evidence of PW2.
PW2 has assessed the disability to the extent of 31% and
23% to particular limbs as is observed by the Tribunal in
Page 11 of the judgment. However, it has incorrectly
assessed the disability at 30% and out of the total
assessed disability, one third of it is considered to be 18%.
Hence, he seeks to re-assess the disability at 18%. It is
submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest
at the rate of 9%. Hence, he seeks to reduce the interest
to 6%. It is submitted that the Tribunal has recorded the
finding with regard to the contributory negligence and the
same is required to be affirmed in the absence of any
appeal by the claimant. Hence, he seeks to allow the
appeal of the Insurance Company.

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3554 of 2019
HC-KAR
3. There is no representation for the respondent
No.1/claimant. Though served, there is no representation
for respondent No. 2.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellant and meticulously perused the material on
record.
5. The materials on record indicate that the claimant
met with a road accident on 05.03.2017 and sustained
grievous injury and fracture as is evident from the oral
evidence of PW2, Wound certificate at Exhibit P8 and
discharge summary at Exhibit P13, the following are the
injuries: "Crush injury involving the left great toe and foot
nd rd
and fracture of right 2 , 3 metacarpal fracture with right
trapezoid fracture." Respondent No.1/ claimant in order
to prove the claim petition examined himself as PW1, got
examined Dr. G. S. Satish as PW2 and got marked Exhibit
P1 to Exhibit P30.

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3554 of 2019
HC-KAR
6. A perusal of the wound certificate at Exhibit P8,
discharge summary at Exhibit P9 and Disability Calculation
Sheet at Exhibit P29 and oral evidence of PW2, it is to be
noticed that the claimant met with the accident and
suffered crush injuries referred supra. He was provided
treatment. As per the oral evidence of PW2, he assessed
the disability at 32% to the left lower limb and 23%
physical disability to the right upper limb. Considering the
said assessment, I am of the considered view that the said
assessments are only with respect to the limbs. If both the
disability opined by the Doctor is added, it would be 55%.
Out of the total assessment of the disability, normally one
third is required to be considered as a disability to the
whole body. Instead of exactly considering one third as a
disability, it would be appropriate to assess the disability
at 20% by taking note of the injuries suffered and
treatment provided.
7. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the
Tribunal assessed the income of the injured by considering

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3554 of 2019
HC-KAR
his avocation as a Milk Vendor at ₹10,000/- per month.
Considering the Notional Income Chart prepared by the
KSLSA, I am of the view that the income is required to be
considered at ₹11,000/- per month in order to award just
compensation. It is needless to observe that the finding of
the Tribunal with regard to the contributory negligence is
required to be affirmed in the absence of any appeal by
the claimant. Hence, the compensation is reassessed in so
far as 'loss of future earning capacity due to disability' is
concerned and the same would be: ₹11,000
x12x15x20%= 3,96,000/- as against ₹5,40,000/-.
8. Insofar as the award of compensation by the Tribunal
under the other heads is concerned, the same remain
unaltered.
9. The Tribunal without assigning any special reasons
awarded the interest at the rate of 9%. The same is
reduced to the extent of 6% by considering the rate of
interest paid by the Nationalized Bank on the Fixed
Deposit.

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3554 of 2019
HC-KAR
10. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the modified
compensation as under:

Out of the compensation of ` 6,71,000/-, if 25% i.e.
` 1,67,750 is deducted towards contributory negligence of
the claimant, he is entitled for compensation of the
`5 ,03,250/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part .

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3554 of 2019
HC-KAR
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
17.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal in MVC
No.1549/2017 is modified to an extent that the
claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of `5 `5 `5 `5 ,03,250/- .
(iii) The compensation shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization.
(iv) Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation amount with accrued interest
before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of
this judgment.
(v) The finding of the Tribunal with regard to
contributory negligence of the claimant at 25%
is affirmed.
(vi) The rest of the judgment and award of the
Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit
and release shall remain unaltered.

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3554 of 2019
HC-KAR
(vii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted
back to the Tribunal.
(viii) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6