IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A. No.8801 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. Chinnappa S/o. Late Chikkanarayanappa, Aged about 43 Years, 2. Narayanaswamy, S/o. Late Chikkanarayanappa, Aged about 38 Years, 3. Smt. Saraswathamma, D/o. Late Chikkanarayanappa, Aged about 45 Years, 4. Smt. Rathnamma, D/o. Late Chikkanarayanappa, Aged about 48 Years, All are R/o. Basavanaparthi, Chikkaballapur Taluk & District. . . Appellants (By Sri. Narendra Gowda, Advocate) AND:
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., CBO 17, No.12, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Next to Canara Bank, Bengaluru-560 024.
Rep by its Branch Manager.
2. Mr. Sathish Upadhaya. C.P, Kogilu Layout, Belahalli road, Yelahanka Post, Bengaluru-560 064. . . . Respondents (By Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, Advocate for R-1 The appeal against R-2 dismissed Vide Court Order dated 24.01.2018) This MFA is filed U/S. 173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and award dated: 03.05.2012 passed in MVC No. 7793/2010 on the file of the 14th Additional, Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, dismissing the claim petition for compensation.
This MFA coming on for further hearing, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T On previous date, the matter was heard substantially and listed today for further hearing. Today, when the case is taken up for hearing, learned counsel on both side absent.
2. For the purpose of convenience in addressing the parties, they are referred to in this appeal as per their ranks before the Tribunal.
3. This appeal is by the claimants/dependants of deceased Chikkanarayanappa, challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 03.05.2012 passed by the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-10) Bengaluru, in M.V.C.No.7793/2010. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section-166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are:
On 11.04.2010 at about 10.30 a.m, Chikkanarayanappa, aged 80 years was crossing the road on N.H.7 at Chitravathi. At that time, Tata Sumo car bearing registration No.KA-04-B-3149 driven by its driver at high speed, rash and negligent manner came from Chikkaballapura side and dashed against Chikkanarayanappa. Due to the impact, he sustained head injuries, abrasion over the left dorsum, contusion over the forehead, contusion over the left masatla, tenderness over the left side of chest over ribs and fracture of ribs. Initially he was taken to Government Hospital, Chikkaballapura, thereafter to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru and thereafter to Rajiv Gandhi Hospital Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 12 days from 11.04.2010 to 23.04.2010. In the interregnum, one Ramakrishnappa lodged a complaint dated 08.05.2010 (Ex.P.7) to Gudibande police stating that in the accident that was occurred on 11.04.2010, his brother Chikkanarayanappa had sustained injuries to his chest and other parts of his body. After taking treatment for 13 days, he was taking follow up treatment. On 08.05.2010 at about 1.00 p.m, unable to bear extreme pain, sufferings and mental agony on account of the accident injuries, his brother Chikkanarayanappa committed suicide by hanging himself to a tamarind tree in his village and died.
5. To substantiate their claim, apart from marking the copy of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, spot sketch, charge sheet, Copy of FIR, copy of complaint, inquest mahazar, P.M. Report, IMV report, charge sheet, discharge summary, medical bills, medical prescriptions, ration card and genealogical tree as Ex.P.1 to P.16, the first claimant, son of the deceased has been examined as PW.1 before the Tribunal. No evidence was let in on behalf of the respondent-insurer.
6. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the accident took place due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-04-B-3149 and the deceased Chikkanarayanappa sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. Despite the same, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was no sufficient material to come to the conclusion that deceased hanged himself to Tamarind tree for unable to bear extreme pain, sufferings and mental agony due to accidental injuries and consequently, dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants herein. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the claimants are before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal, while answering issue No.1 has categorically held that the accident did occur solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo car bearing No.KA-04-B-3149. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants clearly establishes that the deceased sustained injuries in the said accident took treatment for considerable period and incurred huge amount for his medical expenses. As such, the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim petition and in view of the fact that the very object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is a social legislation, is to provide just and reasonable compensation to the accidental victims. On these grounds, he prays setting aside the impugned judgment and for grant of compensation.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-insurer contended that the death of Chikkanarayanappa was not due to the injuries sustained by him in road traffic accident, but it was suicidal death. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petition and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. On careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants-appellants particularly the FIR (Ex.P.1), spot mahazar (Ex.P.3), spot sketch (Ex.P.4), charge sheet (Ex.P.11) and discharge summary Ex.P.12 clearly indicate that, indeed, the accident did occur on 11.04.2010 at about 10.30 a.m, when the deceased who was 80 years old crossing N.H.7 and the said accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. The oral evidence of PW.1 clearly reveals that the deceased was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient, he took treatment from 11.04.2010 to 23.04.2010 and after discharge, and the deceased was used to take follow up treatment. But, the deceased Chikkanarayanappa committed suicide by hanging himself to a tamarind tree in his village and died on 08.05.2010 at about 1.00 p.m (afternoon). At this juncture, it is just and appropriate to refer to the postmortem report Ex.P.9. In the relevant column which meant for narrating the wounds/injuries, the doctor has mentioned about the presence of ligature mark over the upper 1/3rd of the neck, extending from the front to the left side of the neck to back. Except the same, there were no other injuries mentioned in the post mortem report. Further, the doctor has opined that “death is due to cardio respiratory failure, as a result of asphyxia due to hanging”. The averments made in the complaint lodged to the police, which has been marked as Ex.P.7, reveals that the deceased committed suicide by hanging to tamarind tree for being unable to bear extreme pain, sufferings and mental agony, on account of injuries suffered in the accident. Apart from that, the claimant No.1 himself has admitted in his evidence that the deceased Chikkanarayanappa committed suicide by hanging to a Tamarind tree in the village 12 days after the accident. Except the self serving testimony of PW.1 Chinnappa, who is none other than the son of the deceased, there was no other corroborative evidence to establish that the deceased hanged himself to the Tamarind tree for being unable to bear the pain due to accidental injuries. The claimants ought to have examined the doctor who treated the deceased for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to substantiate their claim. The records reveal that the deceased had sustained injuries on account of the accident. But unfortunately, there was no corroborating evidence to prove that the deceased has committed suicide for unable to bear extreme pain, sufferings and mental agony due to accidental injuries.
11. On re-appreciation of the entire material on record, this Court finds that there is no satisfying/convincing material on record to substantiate that the death of the deceased Chikkanarayanappa was due to injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accidents. On the contrary, the opinion rendered by the Doctor who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased had submitted his report stating that the death of the deceased was “death is due to cardio respiratory failure, as a result of asphyxia due to hanging”. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award. No good grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to the costs.
Sd/- JUDGE VR