Harish Madikeri Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:26854 MFA No. 3494 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3494 OF 2021 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HARISH MADIKERI S/O LATE GOPAL SWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.32, 3^RD MAIN MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT ANANTHAPURA VILALGE YELAHANKA HOBLI SINGANAYAKANAHALLI BANGALORE - 64.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, JP AND DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE, NO.69, MILLER'S ROAD, BANGALORE - 52, BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

MR. SYED NAYAZ S/O SYED RAHIM SAB, MAJOR R/AT NO. 93, OPOSITE JAMIA MASJID M.S. PALYA, VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU - 560 007.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR N., ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26854 MFA No. 3494 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.5539/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRL. MACT, CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.1,67,500/- awarded by the Tribunal, is in appeal.

¶23

The fact that the accident occurred and the further fact

¶24

that the offending vehicle was insured is not in dispute.

¶25

The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded

¶26

the following sums as compensation:

¶27

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	40,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	43,445/-
3.	Food, nourishment, attendant, conveyance and other miscellaneous expenses	10,000/-

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26854 MFA No. 3494 of 2021

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

4.	Loss of income during the period of treatment	24,000/-
5.	Loss of amenities in life	30,000/-
6.	Future medical expenses	20,000/-
	Total	1,67,445/-
	Rounded off to	1,67,500/-

¶31

The Insurance Company is served, but remained absent. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of future income.

¶32

As the claimant was aged 48 years, a multiplier of '13' would have to be applied. The Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.12,000/-. Since, there is no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2018, would be Rs.12,500/-.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26854 MFA No. 3494 of 2021

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

I have perused the evidence of P.W.2 the doctor who has examined the claimant and also X-Ray and other medical documents as per Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19. The Tribunal has opined that the said doctor is not a treated doctor. However, based on Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19-the medical reports, P.W.2 assessed the disability of the arm at 42% and whole body at 14%. As such, in my considered view, it would be just and appropriate to assess the disability at 14%.

¶36

Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,73,000/- (Rs.12,500/-x12x13x14%) towards 'loss of future income'.

¶37

As a consequence, the amount of Rs.24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500/- X 3 months).

¶38

Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26854 MFA No. 3494 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Having regard to the length of the stay of the claimant in the hospital, the claimant would also be entitled to 'Conveyance, food and nourishment and attendant charges' at Rs.20,000/- as against the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶42

The sums awarded under other heads of compensation granted by the Tribunal, remain unaltered.

¶43

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and

¶44

the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation:

¶45

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal	As awarded by this Court
		(Rs.)	(Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	40,000/-	50,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	43,445/-	43,445/-
3.	Loss of future income	-	2,73,000/-
4.	Food, nourishment, attendant, conveyance and other miscellaneous expenses	10,000/-	20,000/-
5.	Loss of income during the period of treatment	24,000/-	37,500/-
6.	Loss of amenities in life	30,000/-	30,000/-

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26854 MFA No. 3494 of 2021

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

7.	Future medical expenses	20,000/-	20,000/-
	Total Rounded off to	1,67,445/- 1,67,500/-	4,73,945/-

¶49

Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.4,73,945/- as against Rs.1,67,500/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶50

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶51

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part .

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶54

PB

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Harish Madikeri v. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Madikeri v. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R.Krishnamurthy

Nithin Vs Krishna G T

Sri B H Akshay Vs Pavan Kumar

Shahira M H Vs Smt Jayanthi

Smt.Poornima G Vs Sri.Shivaraju R

Master Yeshavanth Gowda G.R. Vs the Manager