IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT BETWEEN:
SRI. ARMUGAM M.F.A.No.2365/2015 [MV] S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.5, 1ST CROSS FLOWER GARDEN CHIKKAPET BENGALURU-53.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.) AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR B.M.T.C., K.H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027.
(BY SRI.K NAGARAJA, ADV.) …RESPONDENT THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1042/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & XXVI ACMM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/claimant, who is the brother of the deceased is in appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under the judgment and award dated 12.02.2015 passed in MVC No.1042/2014 on the file of the Judge, Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. It is stated that the deceased was aged 55 years as on the date of accident. On 01.02.2012 the deceased was going as a pedestrian on Carls Cable Road, Doddagunta Circle, Bengaluru, a BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-FA-495 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, due to the impact he fell down and sustained injuries. The deceased was shifted to Srinivasa Nursing Home and thereafter to Bowring Hospital, where he took treatment as inpatient up to 05.03.2012. The deceased was again admitted to Bowring Hospital on 11.03.2012 and he died on the same day. It is also stated that he was earning Rs.400/- per day as coolie.
3. On issuance of summons, the respondent filed its statement of objection denying the petition averments. The respondent specifically denied the death due to the accidental injuries. It is also stated that when the death of the deceased was not due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner would not be entitled to any compensation from the respondent – Corporation. In support of his claim, claimant was examined as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P14. Respondent – the Driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and marked the document Ex.R1. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the claimant failed to prove that there was nexus between the death of the deceased and the accidental injuries. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation. Perused the entire material on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is his submission that the accident had taken place on 1.02.2012 and the deceased took treatment as inpatient till 5.03.2012 and was discharged from Hospital. Subsequently on 11.03.2012 he was again re-admitted to Bowring Hospital on which date he died due to accidental injuries. It is his submission that the claimant had incurred medical expenses and other incidental expenses, which the Tribunal failed to award.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation submits that the claimant failed to prove that there was nexus between the death and accidental injuries suffered by the deceased. He submits that Ex.P.5 – the Post Mortem report would clearly indicate that there is nothing to suggest that the deceased died due to the accidental injuries. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition. It is his further submission that the claimant has not placed on record any material to indicate medical expenses and other expenses incurred by the claimant towards the treatment of the deceased and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the points that arise for consideration is as to “a. Whether the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of the deceased ?
b. Whether the claimant would be entitled for compensation on the head of medical expenses and other incidental expenses towards the treatment of the deceased between 1.2.2012 and 5.3.2012 ?
The above points are answered in the affirmative for the following reasons :
The occurrence of the accident on 01.02.2012 involving BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-FA-495 and the accidental injuries suffered by the deceased is not in dispute in this appeal. The fact that the death of the deceased was subsequent to the accidental injuries is not in dispute. The deceased had sustained Type III open both bones fracture of right leg with degloving injury. He was treated for the injuries suffered between 01.02.2012 to 05.03.2012. The deceased was discharged on 05.03.2012 and subsequently readmitted on 11.03.2012 on which date he died. Post mortem was conducted and report is at Ex.P.5, which would indicate that there is nothing to suggest that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimant has also not examined the Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem nor any Doctor to connect the death with accidental injuries. In the absence of the Doctor’s evidence and in the absence of material on record to prove that there was nexus between the death and the accidental injuries, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is proper and correct.
The accident had taken place on 1.2.2012. Admittedly the deceased was inpatient up to 05.03.2012, for a period of more than 32 days for treatment. Ex.P.14 is the case sheet which would indicate the treatment taken and injuries suffered by the deceased. When the deceased was inpatient for more than 32 days, expenses would have been incurred towards conveyance transportation, food, medicines and attendant charges etc. The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on those heads. Further the Tribunal has also failed to award any compensation on the head loss of income during the laid up period of the deceased i.e., for more than one month. I am of the view, the claimant would be entitled for compensation for the expenses incurred by him towards medical expenses, hospital charges and loss of income of the deceased for one month.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified awarding global compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms