IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3902 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SUMA BAI @ SARASWATHI W/O.LATE GOVINDA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 2. MR.SHIVAPRASAD NAYAK S/O LATE GOVINDA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 3. SMT.SOMLA BAI W/O LATE SOMLA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.2 SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHOWKASANDRA VILLAGE, T.BEKUPPE POST, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SREE VIDYA.G.K. ADV. FOR SRI. T.N.VISWANATHA ADV.) AND:
1. M/S. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.31, T.B. TOWER, 1ST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD, ADJACENT TO JAIN COLLEGE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. MR.THIMME GOWDA H S/O SRI.MUTTE GOWDA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.65, VANI VILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004.
(BY SRI.O.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R1; SMT.D.N.MAMATHA, ADV. FOR R2) ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5912/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Claim petition filed by the claimant came to be dismissed. On filing of the claim petition after the service of notice, the Tribunal had framed issues, of which issue number one is as to whether the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner had proved that the petitioner died due to the injuries suffered in the alleged road traffic accident, and the same has been answered in the negative. Consequently claim petition cams to be dismissed. Against which this appeal is filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that when the accident is not in dispute, and the death is established by evidence and documents to the effect that it is due to the injury suffered in the accident, the rejection of claim petition is contrary to law and on this ground has preferred this appeal and prays for awarding of compensation.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the order and submit to dismiss the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. In paragraph number 12 of the judgment it is observed that the accident had taken place on 11th June 2011 and the victim succumbed to the injuries after six months that is on 07th January 2012. The driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. If it were the case of the investigating officer that the death was due to accident, then the driver of the offending vehicle Would have been charged under different provisions of Indian penal code. As per Exhibit 11 post-mortem report goes to show that the death is due to endotoxic septic shock due to pneumonia and multiple lung abcess and pyothorax. The records would reveal that the victim has suffered fracture wound. Considering all these aspects of the matter the issues framed have been answered to the effect that the petitioner have not established the fact that the death was due to the accidental injuries sustained on 11 June 2011. When the issues framed have been elaborately discussed and the Tribunal had come to the opinion that the petitioners have not established the fact of accidental death, going further on the same issue, in this appeal, will not arise. Hence, I do not find any infirmity or error committed by the Tribunal. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for sound and proper.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn