The National Insurance Co.,Ltd., Vs Digambar S/O Nagesh Navagi

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217 MFA No. 102057 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶6

M.F.A. NO.102057 OF 2014 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHRI DIGAMBAR S/O. NAGESH NAVAGI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶13

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

¶14

1A. PRAMILA W/O. DIGAMBAR NAVAGI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BHOJ GALLI, BELGAUM.

¶15

1B. ANITA W/O. MARUTI GOUDALKAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BHOJ GALLI, BELGAUM.

¶16

SHRI RAJASAHEB S. SANADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.302/2, DEVANG NAGAR, OLD BELGAUM. (OWNER OF THE AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING NO.KA-22/4870).

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ J. APPANNANAVAR, ADV. FOR SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADV. FOR R1 (A & B); NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217 MFA No. 102057 of 2014

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO.1741/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T, BELGAUM AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1741/2006, BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T, BELGAUM AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

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

¶24

This is an appeal filed by the Insurer/Respondent No.2 in M.V.C. No. 1741/2006 on the file of the Learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short, the Tribunal) praying to set aside the judgment and award dated 11.04.2014 passed therein.

¶25

The claim petition in MVC No.1741/2006 came to be filed by one Sri Digambar S/o.Nagesh Navagi seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 09.03.2006. During the pendency of the claim petition the Claimant passed away and his legal representatives came on record by contending that the Claimant has succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217 MFA No. 102057 of 2014

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

After contest, the said petition was allowed in part holding that legal representatives of the Claimant are entitled for compensation of ₹2,64,008/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 31.01.2012 till realization. Further, the Tribunal held that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

¶29

Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurer/ Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal has preferred the present appeal mainly on the ground that there was no nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of the Claimant. They have also contended that the Tribunal has overlooked planting of insured vehicle in connivance with the police and the insured. Further, they have disputed dependency of Claimant No.1(b) on the deceased on the ground that she is married daughter.

¶30

During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the Insurer-Appellant has vehemently submitted that there is no material on record to show nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and death of the Claimant and that learned

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217 MFA No. 102057 of 2014

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in this regard.

¶35

Per contra , learned Counsel for legal representatives of Claimant relied on the documents marked at Ex.P12, P16, P20 and such other documents and submitted that there are sufficient materials on record to prove nexus between the injuries sustained by the Claimant in the accident in question and his death.

¶36

The case of the Claimant is that he had met with a road traffic accident on 09.03.2006 at about 9:30 p.m. near Saraf Galli Cross in Shahapur of Belagavi and thereafter he has under gone treatment for accidental injuries at District Civil Hospital, Belagavi and at a private hospital.

¶37

As per the wound certificate marked at Ex.P.9, the Claimant had suffered bleeding from both nostrils and CLW in left upper arm, back of head and over left eye brow. No doubt, in this wound certificate it is mentioned that the injuries found on the Claimant were simple in nature and that X-ray examination did not show any fracture. However, this document contains a specific mention about the Claimant having undergone treatment

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217 MFA No. 102057 of 2014

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

at District hospital, Belagavi as an in patient from 9.3.2006 to 14.03.2006.

¶41

The case record goes to show that legal representatives of the Claimant have produced certain medical records before the Tribunal in support of their contention. These documents include the discharge summaries and case sheet. Ex.P12 is a discharge summary pertaining to the treatment of the Claimant at the District Hospital, Belagavi from 09.03.2006 to 14.03.2006. This document contains mention about the Claimant having undergone treatment for cerebral concussion with fracture of medial and left clavicle at District Hospital, Belagavi immediately after the accident in question.

¶42

Ex.P16 goes to show that the Claimant got admitted at the same hospital for the second time and under went treatment for subdural haematoma as an inpatient from 09.06.2006 to 26.06.2006. Ex.P20 is the case sheet pertaining to the treatment of the Claimant at District Hospital, Belagavi from 05.09.2006. As per this document the Claimant had gone to the hospital for third time with the complaint of difficulty while walking and that he had two episodes of convulsions during past

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217 MFA No. 102057 of 2014

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

15 days. As such it was suspected of recurrence of subdural haematoma and he under went craniotomy. This document further goes to show that the Claimant died on 22.09.2006 while he was still under treatment.

¶46

It is true that there is no direct evidence to conclusively prove nexus between injuries sustained by the Claimant in the accident and to his death. As such the said question needs to be decided based on the other materials available on record. Undisputedly, the accident in question occurred on 09.03.2006 and the Claimant died on 22.09.2006. Thereby it becomes clear that the Claimant has died within a period of 6 months from the date of accident. The materials on record clearly go to show that the Claimant had undergone treatment for cerebral concussion in the first instance and thereafter he under went further treatment for subdural haematoma. During his evidence, PW-2 Dr. Sabu Ningappa Sithal has categorically stated that the Claimant was suffering from paraplegia during his third admission and that it was a continuation of complications arising from the head injury suffered by him. In the considered view of this Court these

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217 MFA No. 102057 of 2014

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

materials on record are sufficient to prove the contention of legal representatives of the Claimant regarding nexus between accidental injuries and the death of the Claimant. As such this Court does not find any justification to accept the contention put forth by the insured/appellant and to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal in this aspect.

¶50

Learned Counsel for the Insurer/Appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the document marked at Ex.P9 and submitted that as per the contents of this document the Claimant was not keeping good health at the relevant point of time and as such cause for his death may be even on account of other reasons. Ex.P9 is a wound certificate issued from District Hospital, Belagavi. In this document the age of the Claimant is shown as 65 years and his general condition as ‘poor’. This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve correctness of these entries made in Ex.P9, based on the examination conducted immediately after the accident. However, in the considered view of this Court the above contents of Ex.P9 cannot be a ground to disbelieve the case put forth by the Claimants. It is because general condition of the patient mentioned in Ex.P9 seems to be

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217 MFA No. 102057 of 2014

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the condition at the time of examination. In the very same document ‘B.P.’ is mentioned as not readable. As such this Court opines that general condition of the Claimant mentioned in Ex.P9 cannot be taken as normal health condition of the Claimant at the relevant period.

¶54

As regards the other contentions of the Insurer, in

¶55

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Birender & Ors ., LAWS(SC)-

¶56

2020-1-25 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. In view of the same, it is to be held that the objection raised by the Insurer disputing dependency of Claimant No.1(b) on the deceased, cannot be entertained.

¶57

Similarly, the contention put forth by the insurer regarding planting of insured vehicle for the purpose of claiming compensation. It is contended that it was a hit and run case and

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217 MFA No. 102057 of 2014

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

later on, the insured vehicle was planted. No doubt the material on record indicates there was some delay in lodging the complaint. Though the accident in question said to have occurred on 09.03.2006 at 9.30 p.m., the complaint came to be lodged on 10.03.2006 at 2.00 p.m. It is to be noted that the complaint was lodged by the wife of the Claimant. In the complaint, it is stated that as she was busy in arranging treatment for her husband at District Hospital, there was delay in lodging the complaint. Further, the document marked at Ex.P11 goes to show that the jurisdictional police have submitted a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle on completion of the investigation in the case. Thereby there are sufficient materials on record to support the case of the Claimant regarding involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question. As such it is held the Insurer has failed to probabalise their contention regarding planting of the insured vehicle for the purpose of claiming compensation in the case.

¶61

Lastly, learned Counsel for the Insurer submitted that the tribunal has erred in awarding interest at 9% per annum, which is excessive considering the date of the accident and

¶62

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217 MFA No. 102057 of 2014

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

prevailing bank rates at the relevant point of time. It is true that in normal course the courts would award interest at the rate of 6% per annum unless there is justifiable ground to award interest at a higher rate. As already pointed out, the claim petition in question came to be filed in connection with an accident occurred on 09.03.2006. Further, either the materials on record or the reasons assigned by the tribunal indicate bases for awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In the said circumstances, this Court holds that the Insurer is justified in contending that the tribunal has awarded higher rate of interest in the case.

¶65

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶66

following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶69

(ii) The judgment and award dated 11.04.2014

¶70

passed in M.V.C. No.1741/2006 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi is modified only

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217 MFA No. 102057 of 2014

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

to the extent of the rate of interest awarded in the case.

¶75

(iii) The compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum as against interest at the rate of 9% per annum awarded by the tribunal, from the date of petition till its realization.

¶76

(iv) The amount in deposit, if any shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶77

(v) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶78

Sd/(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE

¶79

CKK, VB /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

The National Insurance Co.,Ltd., v. Digambar S/O Nagesh Navagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Co.,Ltd., v. Digambar S/O Nagesh Navagi

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

Nagappa S/Oi Nellappa Dollin Vs Chandrappa Veerappa Adur

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

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

Vishwa S/O. Shivanand Bellary Vs the Branch Manager

Mallikarjun S/O Basappa Chachadi Vs the Managing Director

Mahaveer Bhujappa @ Bhujabali Nemagoudar Vs G Shankar