Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Rama S/O Parashuram Pawar on 31 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14812
MFA No. 102866 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102866 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
ISSUING BRANCH OFFICE,
SY.NO.213/2B, PLOT NO.3,
MUNAVALLI COMPLEX,
NEAR COURT CIRCLE,
LAXMI TEMPLE ROAD,
GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM,
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
FIRST FLOOR, PRABHU BLDG.,
Digitally signed by GIRIJA
A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH COURT OF
P.B. NO.175, RAMDEV GALLI,
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.11.05 12:39:16
BELGAUM,
+0530
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR,
ARIHANT PLAZA, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14812
MFA No. 102866 of 2014
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SHRI RAMA
S/O. PARASHURAM PAWAR,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O: DESHMUKH PIMPRI,
TQ/DIST: PARABAGI,
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
2. SHRI BHIMAPPA BALAPPA LAXMESHWAR,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
R/O: KULAGOD VILLAGE,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.
(OWNER OF HMT TRACTOR BEARING ITS
REGISTRATION NO.KA-27/T-2317)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. NAVEEN R. MELINAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE
PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.07.2014 PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL
M.A.C.T., GOKAK IN M.V.C.NO.1426/2012, WITH COST IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14812
MFA No. 102866 of 2014
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
1. Heard Smt. Sharmila M. Patil, learned counsel for the
appellant, as well as Sri. Deepak S. Kulkarni, learned
counsel for respondent No.1.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the award passed by the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gokak, in
MVC No.1426/2012 dated 30.07.2014.
3. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
claimant' for the sake of convenience in discussion)
filed a petition claiming compensation of
Rs.18,00,000/- in total, projecting that he sustained
grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and became
totally and completely disabled. The Tribunal, through
the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs.6,94,856/-
as compensation. The Insurance Company, against
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14812
HC-KAR
whom liability is fixed, is before this Court by filing the
present appeal.
4. Arguing the matter, Smt.Sharmila M. Patil, learned
counsel for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal
awarded exorbitant sum as compensation and
aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
5. Learned counsel states that the admitted case of the
claimant himself is that he was aged around 60 years
by the date of the accident. Medical record produced
by the claimant also establishes the said fact.
However, taking the age of the claimant as 50 years,
the Tribunal applied multiplier 16 and awarded a huge
sum of Rs.5,26,500/- towards 'loss of future earnings'.
Learned counsel thereby seeks to pass necessary
orders.
6. On the other hand, Sri.Deepak S. Kulkarni, learned
counsel for the claimant submits that, due to the
injuries sustained, right leg of the claimant was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14812
HC-KAR
amputated below knee. Learned counsel states that
the claimant, as a Gangman, was earning Rs.10,000/-
per month by the date of accident. However, the
Tribunal took the notional income of the claimant as
Rs.4,500/- per month and therefore, compensation
granted needs enhancement. Learned counsel states
that, though the claimant has not preferred any
appeal, yet the Appellate Court is empowered to grant
additional sum while entertaining the appeal filed by
the Insurance Company.
7. It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained crush
injury to his right foot, which resulted in amputation of
his right leg below knee. As rightly put forth by
learned counsel for the appellant, as per the
documents produced by the claimant himself, his age
was around 60 years on the date of accident. But
taking the age of the claimant as 50 years, the
Tribunal applied the multiplier 13. Indeed, taking the
age of the claimant as 60 years as on the date of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14812
HC-KAR
accident, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier
9. But the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,500/- only
towards 'loss of earnings during laid-up period'. For a
person who loses one of his lower limbs, though up to
below knee, it would take not less than 7 to 8 months
to stand on one leg, to practice walking and to attend
to his normal duties. Therefore, the amount awarded
towards 'loss of income during laid-up period', i.e., Rs.
13,500/-, is grossly low.
8. Also this Court is of the view that the amount granted
towards 'food and attendant charges', i.e., Rs.6,000/-,
is on lower side. The Tribunal failed to award any sum
as compensation for conveyance charges, which the
claimant would have incurred during the course of
treatment. Thus, considering all these facts, this Court
is of the view that there are no grounds to reduce the
sum that is awarded as compensation by the Tribunal.
Equally, this Court does not find any grounds for
enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14812
HC-KAR
9. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.
10. Amount, if any in deposit, be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
gab
CT-MCK
