Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance Co.,Ltd vs Digambar S/O Nagesh Navagi on 24 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217
MFA No. 102057 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
M.F.A. NO.102057 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA,
KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI DIGAMBAR S/O. NAGESH NAVAGI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1A. PRAMILA W/O. DIGAMBAR NAVAGI,
Digitally signed AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
by V N BADIGER
Location: HIGH R/O. BHOJ GALLI, BELGAUM.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
BENCH
1B. ANITA W/O. MARUTI GOUDALKAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BHOJ GALLI, BELGAUM.
2. 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).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ J. APPANNANAVAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADV. FOR R1 (A & B);
NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217
MFA No. 102057 of 2014
HC-KAR
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.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
1. 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.
2. 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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217
HC-KAR
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217
HC-KAR
Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in
this regard.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217
HC-KAR
at District hospital, Belagavi as an in patient from 9.3.2006 to
14.03.2006.
9. 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.
10. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217
HC-KAR
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.
11. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217
HC-KAR
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.
12. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217
HC-KAR
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.
13. As regards the other contentions of the Insurer, in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Birender & Ors., LAWS(SC)-
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.
14. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217
HC-KAR
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.
15. 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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217
HC-KAR
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.
16. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 11.04.2014
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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14217
HC-KAR
to the extent of the rate of interest awarded
in the case.
(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.
(iv) The amount in deposit, if any shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
(v) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
CKK, VB
/CT-AN
