IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7001 OF 2011 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.RAMAKRISHNA S/O.VENKATARAYAPPA SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S 1) SMT.TULASAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGE:48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD 2) KUM.RAJALAKSHMI D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGE: 22 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN TULASAMMA ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
ULLALA UPANAGAR YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SURESH M.LATUR ADV.) AND:
1) SRI.T.S.VENKATESH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, M/S MEGHA TRAVELS, NO.721, 8TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE TALUK 2) THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O.NO.6, SRINIVASA MANSION, NO.364/1, 10TH ‘B’ CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 11 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.NARAYANAPPA, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:06.01.2015) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.11.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.2386/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Claim petition came to be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore by the dependants for the death of the breadwinner in the road traffic accident that took place on 24th February 2003. The Tribunal after considering the materials as also the documentary evidence placed by the parties, has awarded compensation of Rs.22,000/-. The claimants preferred appeal in MFA No.12935 of 2007 challenging the award. The same came to be remanded to the Tribunal to reconsider the case of the parties afresh granting liberty to the claimants to lead evidence to show that death was due to the injuries sustained by the deceased in the road traffic accident. Accordingly the parties appeared before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 10th November 2010 partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.22,000/-. The claimants are before this court seeking enhancement in the compensation.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error. He submits that the death is due to septicaemia. Hence, the Tribunal should have appreciated the evidence of the Doctor and should have awarded suitable compensation.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- insurer submits to dismiss the appeal. He submits that the Tribunal has recorded reasons for awarding the compensation and the same does not call for interference in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. At paragraph 16 of the judgment, the Tribunal has observed that though the doctor PW5 has given the opinion in the wound certificate that the deceased Ramakrishna sustained crush injury to the left foot and compound fracture of calcanium of the left foot, he was discharged on 29th June 2003 and after discharge the Doctor has not examined him. The Doctor came to know that the death was due to septilemia as per the evidence of PW.3 and he do not know the cause of death as he has not treated him at the time of death. The Tribunal has also observed that the evidence of PW5 which clearly shows that the Doctor has given evidence on the basis of opinion given by PW3. It has also come in the observation that the PW5 do not have any records to show that Ramakrishna died due to the accidental injuries and he do not know the cause at the time of death. It is further observed that the records reveal that Ramakrishha had sustained injuries due to road traffic accident alleged to have been occurred on 24th February 2003 and died on 14th March 2004. The petitioners have not produced any oral or documentary evidence to show that Ramakrishna has taken treatment between 24th February 2003 to 14th March 2004 in Victoria Hospital. The petitioners have also not examined the treated Doctor and hence it is observed that there is no nexus between the death and accidental injury.
5. In that view of the matter, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are not to be faulted with, and hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn