National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Kumar Gadigeppa S/O Hanamant Megodi

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14185 MFA No. 100618 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶6

M.F.A. NO.100618 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAMADEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANT PLAZA, II FLOOR, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

KUMAR GADIGEPPA S/O. HANAMANT MEGODI, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT (NIL), R/O. GORAVANAKOLL, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY FATHER AS GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND SRI. HANAMANT S/O. MARUTI MEGODI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GORAVANAKOLL, TQ: SUANDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

SRI. VITHAL HANAMAWWA MALLAVVAGOL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHUNCHANUR, TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC NO.1140/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT II AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, EXAMINE THE SAME

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14185 MFA No. 100618 of 2015

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND MODIFIED THE AWARD DATED 05.01.2015 TO REDUCE THE COMPENSATION TO JUST LEVEL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

¶25

This is an appeal by the Insurer-National Insurance Company Limited in MVC No.1140/2014 challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 05.01.2015 passed by the Fast Track Court-III and Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘the tribunal’) praying to modify the award and to reduce the compensation to just level in the interest of justice.

¶26

It is a case wherein the compensation claimed for the injuries sustained by a minor boy, aged about 4 years at the time of accident, on the ground that he met with a road traffic accident due to actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-24-Q1739. After contest, the learned tribunal allowed the claim petition in part holding that the Claimant is entitled for total

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14185 MFA No. 100618 of 2015

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

compensation of Rs.3,80,000/together with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 23.06.2014 till its realization excluding the period from 19.11.2014 to 24.12.2014. The learned tribunal held that the Insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle in paying the compensation amount.

¶30

The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurer praying for modification of the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the learned tribunal has awarded higher compensation and to reduce the compensation amount to just level. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for Insurer/Appellant submitted that the concerned doctor has assessed the disability of the Claimant at 30% to the lower limb and the learned tribunal neither rejected such evidence nor accepted the same, to grant the compensation under the head of permanent disability. He submitted that learned tribunal has proceeded to award compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- under the head pain and sufferings and permanent disability by relying on

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14185 MFA No. 100618 of 2015

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the decisions reported in ACJ 2013 2445 (SC) and 2013ACC-381 (SC) though the facts and circumstances in those cases are different from the present case. He vehemently submitted that learned tribunal has committed grave error

¶35

in granting Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness for a minor boy, which is excessive and arbitrary. He has also submitted that learned tribunal has committed an error by awarding interest at the higher rate.

¶36

Per contra , learned Counsel for

¶37

Claimant/Respondent No.1 has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.2, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon and submitted that on account of fracture at right shaft femur, the Claimant is limping on right side due to shortening of limb by 2 cm apart from resultant physical disability which is of permanent in nature. As such, he contended that learned tribunal has properly appreciated the materials placed on record and awarded just and reasonable compensation to the Claimant.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14185 MFA No. 100618 of 2015

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to

¶41

the Claimant under the following heads:

¶42

Sl. No	Heads	Amount (Rs)
1	Pain and sufferings & permanent disability	2,50,000
2	Loss of future happiness and amenities	1,00,000
3	Loss of income during the treatment period	6,000
4	Incidental charges	18,000
5	Medical expenses	6,000
	TOTAL	3,80,000

¶43

During the course of the argument, Counsels

¶44

appearing for both side relied on the decision of the Hon’ble

¶45

Supreme Court of India in the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN

¶46

VS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER. In this decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:

¶47

“ It is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14185 MFA No. 100618 of 2015

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick.”

¶51

7. Coming to the facts of this case, admittedly the

¶52

Claimant was aged about 4 years at the time of the accident. He has suffered fracture of middle 1/3^rd of shaft of

¶53

right femur. This aspect is clear from the wound certificate marked at Ex.P4. The inpatient record marked at Ex.P11 goes to show that the Claimant was treated by closed reduction and that he has undergone treatment as an inpatient from 15.04.2014 to 26.04.2014.

¶54

During his evidence PW-2 Dr.Prakash Wali has specifically stated that on clinical examination of the Claimant he has found tenderness over right femur, limping on right side, vesting of right thigh muscle and shortening of right lower limb by 2 cm and opined that the Claimant

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14185 MFA No. 100618 of 2015

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

has got permanent physical disability of 30% to his right lower limb. If we take into consideration the nature of injury suffered by the Claimant and the treatment undergone by him, this Court does not find any valid reason to disbelieve or ignore the opinion expressed by PW-2, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon, regarding permanent physical disability suffered by the Claimant on account of accidental injuries. PW-2 has not spoken about percentage of permanent physical disability to the whole body. Further, he has not given details of the calculation and basis of arriving at percentage of permanent physical disability in right lower limb of the Claimant. As such, it would be proper to assume permanent physical disability to the whole body of the Claimant is not more than 10%.

¶58

In the above referred decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that it would be appropriate to awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for permanent disability up to 10%, in addition to the actual expenses for the treatment and attendant charges etc.,

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14185 MFA No. 100618 of 2015

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. It was a case of minor boy aged 12 years, who suffered fracture of right lower 1/3^rd . In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to the Claimant therein together interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶62

The reasons assigned in the impugned judgment by the learned tribunal go to show that it has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- to the Claimant by taking into consideration all relevant factors including the pain and suffering, inconvenience suffered by the injured, the expenses incurred for nourishment, conveyance as well as permanent disability of 30% to the right lower limb. Thus, on close appreciation of the materials available on record and the reasons given by the tribunal would indicate that it has awarded just compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- to the Claimant. As such, it is held that the Insurer/Appellant has not made out any valid ground to interfere with the

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14185 MFA No. 100618 of 2015

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

quantum of compensation arrived at by the learned tribunal.

¶66

Coming to the question of awarding the interest,

¶67

learned tribunal has awarded simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. If we take into consideration the date of the accident and other relevant aspects, it is to be held that the rate of interest awarded by the learned tribunal is on higher side. It is to be noted that learned tribunal has not assigned any reason or special circumstances to award interest at a higher rate in the case apart from relying on a decision reported in 2014 ACJ 627. In the above narrated facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that in this case it would be proper to award the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as against 9% p.a. awarded by the learned tribunal.

¶68

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14185 MFA No. 100618 of 2015

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

ORDER

¶72

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶73

ii) The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent of rate of interest awarded by the tribunal.

¶74

iii) The Claimant is entitled for interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 6% p.a. as against interest at the rate of 9% p.a. awarded by the tribunal, from 23.06.2014 till its realization excluding the period from 19.11.2014 to 24.12.2014 as ordered by the tribunal.

¶75

iv) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the tribunal forthwith.

¶76

v) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶77

Sd/(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE

¶78

CKK/MBS CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Kumar Gadigeppa S/O Hanamant Megodi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Kumar Gadigeppa S/O Hanamant Megodi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gundamma @ Hyothi W/O Kalappa, Vs Kotresh S/O Eranna B

Jotiba S/O Kedarlingappa Vs Shivappa S/O Thimmappa

Kedarlingapa S/O Tukaramappa, Vs Shivappa S/O Thimmappa

Chandu S/O Basanthappa Kambali Vs Chandrappa Veerappa Adur

Jadiyamma W/O. Rudrappa, Vs v Shivashankar S/O. v Yella Naganna

Shivamma W/O. Ramappa, Vs v Shivashankar S/O. v Yella Naganna