Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Prashant S/O Veerappa Revadi on 16 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13985
MFA No. 102247 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102247 OF 2016 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CLUB ROAD,
BELAGAVI,
REP: CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
T.P. HUB, SRINATH COMPLEX,
II FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET,
HUBLI-580022.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)
GIRIJA A. AND:
BYAHATTI
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
1. SHRI PRASHANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
S/O. VEERAPPA REVADI,
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: PLOT NO.2,
INDAL ROAD,
AZAM NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.
2. BASAVARAJ VEERAPPA KADROLI,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13985
MFA No. 102247 of 2016
HC-KAR
R/O: RUDRAKSHIMATH GALLI,
BAILHONGAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN M.V.C.
NO.2540/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 04.03.2016 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL
WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND/OR FURTHER
RELIEFS, AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13985
MFA No. 102247 of 2016
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Heard Sri.M.K.Soudagar learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.Deepak S.Kulkarni learned counsel
for respondent No.1.
2. This appeal is the outcome of the order that is
rendered by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for
brevity) in M.V.C. No.2540/2013 dated 04.03.2016. The
appellant against whom liability is fixed to pay
compensation is before this Court by filing the present
appeal.
3. Arguing the matter only on the quantum of
amount that is awarded as compensation and the interest
part, learned counsel for the appellant states that
respondent No.1 sustained only one grievous injury and two
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13985
HC-KAR
simple injuries during the course of accident. An injury to
the toe though grievous in nature, does not result in any
permanent physical disability. But without considering the
said aspect, the Tribunal awarded huge sum of
Rs.1,14,000/- as compensation that too with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum and aggrieved by the liability
imposed thus, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel
thereby seeks to reduce the sum that is awarded as
compensation and the interest fixed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 states that respondent No.1 underwent a
surgery during the course of treatment and the evidence of
PW-3 is that the disability in respect of right foot is 15%
and therefore respondent No.1 should have filed an appeal
seeking enhancement in compensation. Learned counsel by
submitting thus states that there are no grounds to reduce
the amount that is granted as compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13985
HC-KAR
5. The Tribunal through the impugned order held
that respondent No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/-
towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of
future happiness and amenities, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
income during the period of treatment, Rs.14,000/- towards
incidental charges and Rs.30,000/- towards medical
expenses. Having considered the nature of injuries
sustained, the treatment taken including the surgical
procedure undergone, this Court is of the view that the sum
that is granted as compensation cannot be termed to be
exorbitant. However, this Court is of the view that the
appellant is justified in seeking to reduce the rate of interest
on the awarded sum. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of
with the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13985
HC-KAR
(ii) The rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is
reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per
annum.
(iii) Amount if any in deposit be transmitted to
the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
RH
