High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri M Krishnan vs The Divisional Controller on 2 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri M Krishnan vs The Divisional Controller on 2 September, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
2 MFA. 14406/07[MV}

THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED U/S. 173(1) OF  ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD {DATED
21.08.2007

PASSED IN MVC NO.58/2002 ON ‘F};LE’ .012′
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.} Si MACT, K.G.F’., PARTLfi”‘AIJ2QW1.NG

THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION

ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ONLPOE. TPIIS__VDA
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ~ – . I A
JUDdM§fl;7
The Ciaimant h’a._S'”£iIed’_vAthj.S ‘app.eal,fOr enhancement of

compensation. V

2. learned Counsel for
c1ajmantS._ » ” 1» ‘
9111.5 namely Sri. K. Vijaya @ K.

VijaylgumafiiSV’the..’Son. Of'”CIainIant No.1 and 2. AS a result of

acyeitieiilt, he Siifferett head injuries. He was admitted in

Hospital, Tainaka, Kolar. The first admission

“»vg_§iiui-ii~;’?gf.V_i.Iie period between 28.09.2001 and 07.10.2001

and Seigond admission was during the period between

A A0Sj0_3.2003 and 19.03.2003. The third admission was

3 MFA. 14406/0’7{MV]

during the period between 19.11.2005 and 30.11.2005. He

died on 04.12.2005.

The learned counsel for the claimant»””uiouIgi.

that taking into consideration 22 niedieal -1 is

established that the claimant died a “of it1j’ijries..L

suffered in the accident.

4. The leamed.,,._couAnse1;_>for”=the:”ix}surance company
Would justify U13 impt.t~g–‘i€§1» “claimant has not
examined original claimant.

There is hold that the death was

due to in the alleged accident.

5. The 1eafned._con.i1sel for the claimant would submit

the deceVas’ed__S_H1fi.Vijaykumar died due to the grievous

,2 iiijnries’AsufiVere_d by him in the accident. In the absence of

,;»1ied.ical’a”_’e.Vid;ence, it is not possible to accept this

subm1s–sio’n’. The learned counsel for the claimant would

. s1.:bmit”that the claimants have lost their son aged about 24

4 MFA. 14406/0’7{MV)

years. But, they have failed to establish the cause of death

by leading medical evidence.

Having regard to the facts and circu1Ii’stancest’0fi’the

case, I am of the considered opinionVth’at&_ the requires

reconsideration by the Tribuna1.at1n’*.the of

evidence to be adduced byfltaimant, has to

decide whether the death ,of *origii1a1 claimant’ was due
injuries suffered in the :tL:.ei*cafter quantum of

the compensatior1._

6. fo11owing:–

The appeal i”s._ac::vepted; = impugned award is set

aside, inatter .rernanded to the Tribunal for

reconsider’a.tio13.Vin.the”i.i,ght of observations made herein and

in accordance’u}i’1h’_”iaw’;”Both parties are at liberty to adduce

further evidence”! .S1i.;K. Nagaraj is permitted to file vakalath

within six weeks from today.

‘)\5H

RKK/«

Parties to bear their costs.

MFA. 14406 I 07(MV)