Karnataka High Court
Sri Basanna vs Sri Manjunath B on 3 December, 2021
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
M.F.A.NO.42 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SRI BASANNA
S/O SRI. BHEEMAPPA HERUNDI
AGED 65 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O NEXT TO BYRAVESHWARA TEMPLE,
GANGAMMA HOUSE ARCH ROAD,
PUTTENAHALLI, BANGALORE
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE BASANNA
AGED 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O DODDASAGAR, SHAHAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
2. AMARAPPA
S/O LATE BASANNA
AGED 43 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O PUTTENAHALLI, 1ST CROSS,
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SRI MANJUNATH B
S/O BAILAPPA H.
R/O NO.611, 8TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN,
K.N. EXTENSION, YESHWANTHAPURA,
BANGALORE-22
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE
REG NO.KA-04-ES-1513)
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
D.NO.13, NO.199,
YATHIRAJ MAT BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR,
2ND MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-03
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. POORNABODHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 16.3.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4756/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 20TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 26.11.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is filed by the claimants
questioning the judgment and award dated 16.03.2015 passed
in MVC.No.4756/2010.
2. One Basanna, who is the husband of appellant No.1
herein met with an accident on 24.06.2010 at about 11.00
a.m. while he was crossing the road at D.B.Pura Road,
Puttenahalli Bus Depo Road, Yelahanka. The said Basanna
filed a claim petition for having sustained grievous injuries.
After 8 months, the injured died. As such, the present
appellants came on record and prosecuted the claim petition
by contending that they being the dependants are entitled for
compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
3. The Tribunal having assessed the oral and
documentary evidence, more particularly the evidence of the
Doctor who was examined as PW.3, however, disbelieved the
ocular evidence of PW.3 and the certificate issued by the
Doctor as per Ex.P-20. The Tribunal having examined the
material documents was of the view that there is a long gap of
8 months between the date of accident and the date of death
and there is absolutely no cogent evidence indicating that the
injured died on account of injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident dated 24.06.2010. The Tribunal has drawn adverse
inference against the appellants herein for having failed to
secured the PM report immediately after death. The Tribunal
has also drawn adverse inference against the appellants for
having failed to produce documents indicating that PW.3 has
treated the deceased in the intervening period. On these set
of reasonings, the Tribunal has proceeded to deny the claim of
the appellants and has only awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards medical expenses.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the
clinching medical evidence would establish the nexus between
the injuries sustained by the claimant and death and
therefore, he would submit to this Court that the Tribunal
grossly erred in not awarding compensation under the head of
loss of dependency and also under conventional heads.
Placing reliance on Ex.P-20 and ocular evidence of PW.3, he
would submit to this Court that appellants have succeeded in
proving that the death of the claimant was on account of
injuries sustained in the road traffic accident dated
24.06.2010. On these set of grounds, he would submit to this
Court that the judgment and award of the Tribunal warrants
interference at the hands of this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance
Company. Perused the records.
6. The Doctor who is examined as PW.3, in his ocular
evidence, has stated at unnumbered paragraph 2 that he has
treated Basanna on 01.02.2011. He has stated that on
examination, he found that the claimant was suffering from
septicemia which would give rise to cardio respiratory failure.
While in Ex.P-20, which is the medical certificate issued by
PW.3, he has stated that he has examined the claimant on
20.01.2011 and found that the claimant was suffering from
high temperature, phenumonitis and carditis.
7. If the statement made by PW.3 in ocular evidence
is examined in the light of medical certificate issued by PW.3
as per Ex.P-20, both the versions would contradict each other.
Therefore, the medical evidence which is placed on record by
the appellants is not trustworthy and no credence can be
attached. PW.3 though claims that he has treated the
claimant, no medical records are produced by PW.3 except
issuing the medical certificate as per Ex.P-20. Even otherwise,
the medical certificate as per Ex.P-20 also indicates that
claimant was suffering from old age diseases and therefore,
there is no clear and direct evidence to establish that death
has occurred only on account of injuries sustained in a road
traffic accident. There is absolutely no evidence to that effect.
8. The appellants have also not informed the police
about the death of the deceased and no postmortem is
conducted immediately after the death. Therefore, on re-
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, this Court
is in total agreement with the findings and the consequent
conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. I do not find any
infirmities and illegalities in the judgment and award under
challenge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
