MFA.No. 3011.2006
IN THE HKEH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY 01:’ OCTOBBJE-ii2()»€§§;:–:: .
BEFOREV
THE HOIWBLE MRS.JUS’I’IC£j) 3.31.
M.F.A.N0;3Q11I*20§5
BETWEEN:
B N RAMACHANDi?.’A= *
3/0 NARAYANRAQ ” , V’
AGED AB_£}’U__’I’ szzvmags,’ % »
R/AT ADA¥§£.MARAfiAHALLI ‘V
c/o_mJAz~;Vms. mgsmmvaa HIJBLI
BANGAuGREJ=» fa’=g 1.’
. .. APPELLANT
(By Sfi:RAJASHE;§{HARV_:K,.}tDV.)
A {if TA.,G%r§A§}ABUsHANA
._ r~f<')';–6V?56;-V1.–fJ'FH 1:) MAN RAOD,
. 6TH –1!3LcaCK RAJAJWAGAR,
BAf€GALOI2E 10.
‘X 2 THE: ORIENAL INSURANCE co LTD
‘T JAYALAKSHMI MANSION 2ND FLOOR
V’ r 930.1001, 56,
DRRAJKUMAR ROAB, 4TH BLOCK,
RAJ}UINAGAR,BANGALORE 10
RESPOP-fi’.)F.2NTS
(By SMT: HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF’ MVACI’ AGAKNST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD I3A’1’EB:14/11/2005 PASSED IN
MFA.No.3011.2006
.. 3 ..
and Award the injured claimant has fibd this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. II)uring the pendency of this the
injured/claimant died and subsequentijfhh ‘
representafives have been brought on “They
also filed an afidavit stating
occurred on account of the
and that the deceased illness
and that there is behueen ‘e2s:ci;1enf and the death
of thehuoihrveunrxstances appeliants were
time. evidence with mgard to the
nexus se:weme%m¢e¢eam and the injuries sustasnen in the
the’ eensidexation of this court to fake a decision
‘ has _ the appeal ought to be remanded to the
” . .Tfib13vn’al«’fofVVthe purpose of ganfing compensation on the
of hvloes of estate in accordance with the opinion of the
éeneh of this court in the case of Uttam Kumar Vs.
‘Medhav & another reported in ILR 2002 Kaxnataka 1864.
‘ Despite opportunity being granted to the appellants they
have not produced any medical records to substantiate their
contention that the death of the deceased was on account of
the injuries sustained in the accident. %
MFXLNO. 3811 . 2306
– 4 _.
3. Learnead counsel for the appellant submits that though
the appellants have not been able to produce any
reconcis before this court nevertheless an be
granted to them to prove their case that
enhanced compensation on of ‘ficffus ‘
between the accidental injuries . in;
submits that the matter he
purpose.
4. Per contxta, iiifiurance company
submits that _’on the part of the
appeflants to of medical evidence
particuiarly ‘ ‘e1i§ae before this court, the
V. iii-of wouiiiihfiévof no purpose and that there
is no of compensation and hence the
to he!’
point that arises for my oonsidczratizm is as to
A matter ought to be remanded to the Tribunal for
3 gansiderauon in View of the death of the injured
4..V.vi::l;z’V:xLi1nza111:? /3%
MFZLNO. 3011. 2006
“5…
5. Though the appellants have not been able to
documentazy evidence before this court to ~
contents of the amdavit am by the»Awi;dmv_.6f’th.e”::=2iipei1ant€ ‘ ”
on 13.8.2008 nevertheless i:a1<:n1' g :1:1'ote:'"c*f:' the
afidavit contains the ave11.*:£c.::1_t_; tl1 at_ ihe pf ;
appeliant was as a result of in the
accident and that there' _the aeefient and
the death of theA appe1ALa1V_1f,' of justice an
oppoztunity is R~—igrove their case in
terms of "edmis court in Uttam
Kumafs is remanded to the
matter to taking note of
the subse_qjuent4"event,VVtzafigeiykhe death of the appellant in
ma th¢""F–u:1« "Bench opinion noted above and
_ compensation in terxns of the said
in date-has as a result of the
injmies stzsfafined in the acciadenhjn case the appellants fail
«.,ou1V,; a case in terms of the jndment in Uttam
ease, then the Judgment and Award of the 'I'ribuna.1
V 14.11.2005 shall stand undisturbed. £4
//,4
ME'A.No. 3011 .2006
6. Hence the @peal is allowad and the
remanded back to the Tribuml with a direcfion to .«
the case in terms of the observations M ‘ u
KVN*