I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23m DAY OF NOVELMBER 2009
BEFORE:
THE HON'BL.E MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRV_:ARE.CB*,:):A;f7'.
MISCELLANEOKES FIRST APPEA__LQ'IQ.1()95'7'(§E;2O"€i8"(.M}_@;)»
ALONG WITH MISCELLANEOUS FIf'.._"_.'e'
Age: 57 Years,' ~ '
"Tide No.1 to 4 are the
'Lega-i.R'ep1*e$e.r1t9.----tives of
"L'«1'{{";_ V1tvta;I'--«Ra0.A'and ail are resident of
Agrafiara E'xte_nf€i(m,
Banéwa1'z1' TGWI1,
_ 'r_.ArsikeI'~e Taluk.
V' V District.
'.I~'i.1:1_;5?'3 112. RESPONDENTS
Shrifiayzlnanda.S.Pati1. Advocate for Resp0ndem;.N0._i to 4)
.». .. .. ..
» -:~ 3:» –1< -:4
8
3
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgement and
award dated: 2E.8.2008 passed in lVIVC.No.5/2.006 on tiie, file of
the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and ACJM and Motoi*.Az:¢’_iwdents
Claims Tribunal, At’sil<ere, Awarding a c()mpe'iA1s.a'1tior1_l"..of
Rs.2,85,()()O/– with interest at pa. from the date– Oftiil. '
payment.
_IN MFA caoss OBJECTION NO. 125 of ” in A
BETWEEN :
Vittalrao,
Son of Late Ganeshrao, ‘ . .
dead by legal representatix/eis_t” ‘
l. S2ithya1i’:ti21y2i11a .l:RA:;1t),< _ ii __
Son of Late VI'E1:_:ili":«1p0,p_ _ " '
Age: 38 Years-:,V '
V ' Son oiI7Late~X/ittalrao,
3. L,ol<e.stl-"i,~ '
Soapof. Late Vittalrao,
pp Age:-3.3' Years,
ii . élllfietravztthi,
Wife of Late Vittal Rao.
” Age: 58 Years.
5 The Respondent No.1. to 4 are the
Legal Representatives of
5
Late Vittal Rao and all are resident of
Agrzihara Extension,
Banavara Town.
Arsikere Taluk.
Hassan District. 7
Pin: 573 1 12. V il;«.,,
(By Shri.Dayananda.S.Patil, Advcaeéte for-C Ce:;5ssA.objé;4r5is}
AND:
1. .l\/Iallappa _ __ _
Son
Drivenl3d§1ge.l?§lc>.9i1%85;”-K.’ A
KSE’..TC_,–
Claikk:.m1:1gé1i0i’e’Distrie_t}-
2. The ijmsitmgrr Cont.ro.llei*i
Ksarc.
. – A Ch ilCkmag’*a.1Aur Diviiéiiion,
‘ _Chicl:maga.lti’i’,._
l(‘Qwrie.,r”ofi’B{I:;_No.
“K/x».09 r’«’.23;0 …RESPONDEN’TS
iV_(By Advocate)
ii Misee.llaneous First Appeal Cross Objection is filed
‘u.nde1f..–‘Or<ie1' XU Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, .1908
agg1in.st the judgement and award dated 2.1.8.2008 pa$sed in
C ..MVC.No.5/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division)
5
5
and ACJM and l\/Iotor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Arsikere, partly
allowing the claim petition for cornpensation and, seeking
enhancement of compensation. ”
Miscellaneous First Appeal and MFA.Cross-,Ob:iet’_t_ion
coming on for admission this day, the Co’t:rt_:*dei’ive’redthe
following: —
gunomnnrd
Heard the Counsel appellarrtflas well as the
iespondertts, who have filed Crossf(J:b_ie’crt’ions–. _
The are that the respondents herein are
the legal regqresvenitiatii/es” olfthe deceased who was iriiured while
altg»li-t,ingii’i?a’om a”‘ous___i)elo1iging to the appellant as a result of the
‘inj’uries–v._Vhei:was.._hospital.ised for .13 days and is said to have
i~et:ei’ved trej_21tinent. thereafter and had filed a claim for
<._cornpe"nsation on the basis of injuries. During the pendency of
i"ithe_ lp'et_iti()t.i on 20.7'.20{)7, that is after a period of two years
.. ._a__tid one month from the date of the accident, he is said to have
died. There was medical evidence tendered to contend that the
3
(3
deceased had died as a result of the injuries that he had suffered at
the accident. The Tribunal having accepted the same an_d>having
granted compensation in favour of the legal f6pl’E3St*3Y1’ft1ti’&’.§iSitif the
respondent herein in a total sum of Rs.2,85,00_9:’+*,» of
dependency computed at Rs.l,22,(i’Q()/-gtthedappeliant:ie:s__Eiefore i
this court challenging the saine.
3. While it is primarily co_n_tend_e’d_j_jthat.itnojughviihe deceased
had suffered injuries as ivtheiicrgiidient, he was treated
and was well onthe:’wayto~–:iecovery and therefore, there was no
nexus betwe_eiri,Vthe .injur’ies’_.’t’and the death that had occurred two
yearn:-hand one m”onth___after the accident. The medical evidence is
‘without._re~ference to any record and is a mere opinion expressed
by the Meidiicaii Practitioner and therefore, there no basis to
V._hold that’:. the major sons and the widow. who were the legal
_rc.pi”e.sentatives of the deceased were entitled to any compensation
. __tolwa1’ds loss of dependency. The Tribunal was in total error in
proceeding to accept the contention that the death had occurred
3
during the pendency of the claim petition, on accot.tt1t_4iit>f the
injuries that the deceased had suffered and theret”oreA,ll ‘weiie
entitled to loss of dependency. Th_e~…Counselllifoi-‘.fthe”appellant_
would take this court through the t’et:or:d’_’it”o de’m_o’1;stratei_i:thati–the
evidence tendered by the Med_i(:a.%l Pract_itioti.e”t1 t’r–svll”I?Wl–2 was
hollow and that there was.__I’10 SI:iI5l}i>titf.1éin§§”tt1.iate1’ial”for’the Tribunal
to have granted the co1ttpensation*.”i
4. -.fo1*–..t.he’respondents would resist the
appeal:7attd._ woVuld.st1,h1n_ilt..he had suffered head injuries and the
nature of i’nj_4u1’ies were such that the death having occurred after
two’-lyeaita and””ot1e____rno11th after the accident was not an
:l”T_he Medical Practitioner who had, in fact, treated
the dleceaseidj_tuE1d also conducted post–mo1tem was examined and
it was “his’:.opinion that the death was at direct result of the accident
the injuries. There was no better evidence that can be
.. __pi’oduced in support of the claim. The fact that there was an
interval between the acciderngnd the death is no ground to negate
8
the claim when the same is supported by medical evidence. On
the other hand, the respondents are entitled 1oi:i”e.l1’hai1.c.ed
compensation several conventional heads ‘7h__ave*-.notl ‘been’
considered by the Tribunal. The colitenLio_1i*«.tha:t.th’e,1najor sorts it
were not entitled for co1_npensati,on is besides the.-lfmeintl’ They are
arreligned as legal representativesoflthe dece*a.se’d’¢lai.nn2111t and the
widow of the decease’d.n–2irrial s’ca1’e= and therefore, would
seek enhanced. iieation.
5.iKOn_these ltiiralliconitelnt~i()ns and on a close examination of
the record, 1~3.edicaI_ helridence tendered to contend that the
T”‘-deaithlilcfitthe’..dece-asedllhas occurred as a result of the injuries
the-..«acci.denE cannot be drsbelieved. The strong
sL1b_n1.issi.t’jiis-on behalf of’ the Counsel for the appellant to the
.3centrar’yV”a_re not tenable. Hence, the appeal does not merit
. consideration. H()weVe1′, insofar the Cross Objections are
“concerned, since the deceased was aged 65 as on the date of the
2
9
accident, the Cross–objectors himself has indicated the age of the
deceased 55 in the cause title. Hence, it cannot be zicc~e’pt_.ed.,4that
the deceased was aged 65 and on that basis, tli.e.”witd.o”v{?”iofl’l_”the
deceased was certainly entitled to”co1’npe_nsati.orill” i1e”ifurther T.
assertion of the Counsel for the appellant th21t’posténi(irtein
report indicated the age 65l”e.ari’not be’~co’rtcilusilV:e since the
respondent himself has A._re’c0rd.ed :the*in’peris21tiori”g1’anted is adequate insofar as
the widow ct)rir;ei’n¢d.i ..
appeal”‘;ts.._.Wieil as the Cross-objections stand dismissed.
‘”l7iie deposit be released in favour of the claimant-
Sd/.;
JUDGE
Tl V