Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 8557
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Vijaykumar A. Patil, J
THE BRANCH MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
LAVANYA W/O MADHU – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3945/2020 (MV-I)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashok N. Patil
For the Respondents: Abhiraj B. Chengti
A claim petition is maintainable even if the insured is not arrayed as a party provided the vehicle is insured. Salary certificates are admissible as proof of income unless contradicted by evidence, and medical testimony is sufficient to establish disability.
Headnote:The appellant insurance company challenged the judgment and award passed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in MVC No. 38/2018, which awarded compensation of Rs. 11,17,754/-. The appellant contended that the claim petition was not maintainable as the insured was not arrayed as a party, the income assessment of Rs. 15,411/- based on a salary certificate (Ex.P103) lacked corroboration, and the 22% whole-body disability was excessive. The court found the claim maintainable and upheld the income and disability assessments based on the evidence provided. The primary issues were whether the non-joinder of the insured invalidated the petition and whether the evidence for income and disability was sufficient. The court reasoned that the insurance company failed to produce contra-evidence to disbelieve the salary certificate and that the medical testimony of CW2, supported by documentary evidence, justified the disability percentage. The court further observed that the interest rate of 8% was without justifiable reason and should align with nationalized bank fixed deposit rates. In modification of the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal to the above extent, the appeal stands partly allowed
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the appeal against the mact award. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding maintainability, income, and disability. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. non-joinder of the insured does not render a claim petition non-maintainable. (Para 6) |
| 4. salary certificates are valid evidence of income in the absence of contra-evidence. (Para 7) |
| 5. medical evidence and documentary records are sufficient to establish permanent disability. (Para 8) |
| 6. interest on compensation should be based on nationalized bank rates. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
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
1. 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 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 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 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, he
