Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. v S Shivanna

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026MFA/7269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant's appeal for enhanced motor accident compensation and insurer's appeal on liability and quantum were heard together. The High Court upheld negligence findings, set aside loss of future income since the railway-employed claimant received the same salary, enhanced non-pecuniary heads and awarded future medical expenses, reducing compensation to Rs.2,28,156/-.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Branch Manager Vs v S Shivanna — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:29450 MFA No. 6892 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7269 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 6892 OF 2023

¶9

(MV-I)

¶10

C/W

¶11

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 7269 OF 2023

¶12

(MV-I)

¶13

IN MFA No. 6892/2023

¶14

BETWEEN:

¶15

V S SHIVANNA

¶16

S/O SRIKANTHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT 101, AMBEDKAR STREET VEERAGOWDANA HUNDI VILLAGE BADANVALU, NANJANJUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 119.

¶17

…APPELLANT

¶18

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

(BY SRI SREENIVASAN M Y, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

KUMARA S. CHANDAN R S/O LATE SIDDAIAH MAJOR, R/AT No.165/6 EACHAGALLI VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK

¶22

MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 119.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:29450 MFA No. 6892 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7269 of 2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶27

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, SUNNY CENTER No.374, NEW KALIDASA ROAD VIJAYANAGAR, 1^ST STAGE MYSURU – 570 017.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O DTD. 15.06.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.05.023 PASSED IN MVC No.303/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶31

IN MFA No. 7269/2023

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

THE BRANCH MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, 1^ST FLOOR, SNNY CENTRE No.374 NEW KALIDASA ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR 1^ST STAGE, MYSURU, KARNATAKA – 570 017. REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE No. 69, J.P DEVI AND JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT

¶34

...APPELLANT

¶35

(BY SRI S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE)

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:29450 MFA No. 6892 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7269 of 2023

HC-KAR

AND:

V S SHIVANNA S/O SRIKANTHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT No.101, AMBEDKAR STREET VEERAGOWDANA HUNDI VILLAGE BADANAVALU, NANJANGUD TLAUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 301.

¶41

KUMARA S S/O LATE SIDDAIAH R/O 165/6, ECHAGALLI VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 301.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI SREENIVASAN M Y, ADVOCATE)

¶44

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.05.2023 PASSED IN MVC No.303/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,84,406/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶45

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶47

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶48

MFA No.6892/2023 is filed by the claimant seeking

¶49

enhancement and MFA No.7269/2023 is filed by the insurer challenging the liability and quantum of

¶50

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29450 MFA No. 6892 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7269 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

compensation awarded in judgment and award dated 04.05.2023 passed in MVC No.303/2020 by the Senior

¶53

Civil Judge and MACT, Chamarajanagar.

¶54

Even though the appeals are listed today for admission, with the consent of both the counsels they are taken up for disposal.

¶55

The facts leading to the filing of claim petition are as under:

¶56

(a) That on 27.07.2020 at about 1.10 p.m. the claimant was riding motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-09-EK-3515 from Nanjangud side towards Mysore side and when he was riding the same near Tandavapura bus stop on Nanjangud Mysore road, cautiously turned towards right side of the road, at that time, the rider/owner of Honda motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA09 HQ 2983 came from Mysore side towards Hallididdi village side driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner’s vehicle. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries.

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:29450 MFA No. 6892 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7269 of 2023

¶58

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Petitioner took treatment in the hospital. Petitioner made the claim petition.

¶61

(b) Respondent No.2 / insurer contested the claim petition denying the accident, rash and negligent driving of the offending motor cycle and liability of the insured. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶62

(i) Whether the petitioner proves, that, he has sustained grievous injuries due to actionable negligence on the respondent of river of offending vehicle bearing no.KA09-HQ-2983 on 27.07.2020 at about 1.10 p.m. when he written statement going near thandavapura bus stop on Mysore Nanjangud main road n the motor cycle bearing no.KA-09-EK3515?

¶63

(ii) Whether the respondent No.1 proves that accident taken place due to negligence of petitioner?

¶64

(iii) Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?

¶65

(iv) What order of Award?

¶66

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29450 MFA No. 6892 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7269 of 2023

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

(c) The claimant has been examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 and Doctor has been examined as CW.1 and got marked Ex.C1 to C6. Respondents have not lead any evidence. The Tribunal after hearing arguments on both side, appreciating the evidence on record assessed the compensation and awarded compensation under different heads as under:

¶69

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
01.	Pain and suffering	25,000.00
02.	Medical expenses	97,190.00
03.	Loss of income during laid up period	966.00
04.	Loss of amenities	35,000.00
05.	Loss of future earning	3,26,250.00
	Total	4,84,406.00

¶70

The Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 6% p.a.

¶71

from the date of petition, till realization and directed the respondent No.2/ insurer to pay the compensation. The claimant has filed the appeal seeking enhancement and insurer has filed the appeal in respect of quantum and its liability to pay the compensation.

¶72

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29450 MFA No. 6892 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7269 of 2023

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Heard learned counsel for the claimant and

¶75

learned counsel for insurer.

¶76

Learned counsel for the claimant contends that compensation awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities are on lower side and seeks enhancement of the compensation under those heads. He further submits that the claimant requires operation for removal of implants and Doctor – CW.1 has given estimation of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and the Tribunal has not awarded anything towards future medical expenses. With this he prays to allow the appeal.

¶77

Learned counsel for the insurer would contend

¶78

that the accident has occurred in the middle of the road and there is head on collusion and the same can be seen in the sketch of the spot of the accident at Ex.P.4. The claimant also contributed to the accident and therefore, there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the same requires to be assessed. He further submits

¶79

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29450 MFA No. 6892 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7269 of 2023

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

that the claimant is a Railway employee and he is getting

¶82

the same income which he was getting prior to the accident and therefore, he is not entitled for loss of future income. The compensation awarded under other heads are just and proper. The estimate given by the Doctor for future medical expenses is only an estimate and that cannot be considered for award of future medical expenses. With this he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶83

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the judgment and award and the certified copy of Ex.P4 – sketch furnished by the learned counsel for the claimant.

¶84

Charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the offending motor cycle. Ex.P4 – sketch indicates that claimant drove the motor cycle from Nanjangud side towards Hallididdi village and he took turn to go to Hallididdi village and at that time the rider of the offending motor cycle came from Mysore side and dashed to the

¶85

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:29450 MFA No. 6892 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7269 of 2023

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

claimant. Considering the same, there is no head on collusion. The offending vehicle dashed on the side of the motor cycle of the claimant. Considering the said aspect, there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle.

¶88

The claimant was a railway employee. The claimant/PW.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he is getting the same salary. Considering the said aspect, there is no loss of future income. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled for loss of future income and compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the said head requires to be set-aside.

¶89

The claimant has sustained one fracture i.e. humerus-shaft-closed fracture and other three simple injuries. Considering that he has sustained one fracture and three simple injuries, the compensation awarded for

¶90

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:29450 MFA No. 6892 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7269 of 2023

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

pain and suffering requires to be enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and loss of amenities from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. CW.1 – Doctor who has treated claimant has stated that claimant requires to undergo operation for removal of implant and given estimation of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. Ex.C5 and C6 are estimates for removal of implants. Considering the fact that the claimant has to undergo operation for removal of implant, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses. In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to total compensation under different heads:

¶93

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
01.	Pain and suffering	50,000.00
02.	Medical expenses	97,190.00
03.	Loss of income during laid up period	966.00
04.	Loss of amenities	50,000.00
05.	Future medical expenses	30,000.00
	Total	2,28,156.00

¶94

The claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,28,156/- as against Rs.4,84,406/- as awarded by the

¶95

11 -

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC:29450 MFA No. 6892 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7269 of 2023

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

Tribunal with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition

¶99

till realization. In view of the above, the following:

¶100

ORDER

¶101

(i) Both the appeals are allowed in part.

¶102

(ii) The claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,28,156/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶103

(iii) The insurer shall deposit the entire compensation along with interest.

¶104

(iv) The claimant is entitled to release of entire compensation amount.

¶105

The insurer has already deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.5,52,158/- before this Court. Hence, Registry is directed to refund the excess amount in deposit to the insurer and transfer the amount which the claimant is entitled to the Tribunal.

¶106

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶107

DKB

¶108

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

The Branch Manager v. v S Shivanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Branch Manager v. v S Shivanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sridhara v Vs Ghouse Khan

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shobhana

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri. Pandiyan Velu @ Pandiyan

V S Shivanna Vs Kumara S Chandan R

The Managing Director Vs Sri. Shaik Ahmed Shariff @ S, Ahmed Shariff

Pavan Kumar. K Vs Iffco-Tokio General Ins Co. Ltd.