Sri Parameshwara H Naik vs Prabhu H T
2022 Latest Caselaw 13015 Kant

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

               M.F.A.NO.8242/2013 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI. PARAMESHWARA H. NAIK
     S/O. HANUMANTH @ NAIK HANUMANTHA,
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURIST

2.   SMT. CHANDRAKALA @ NAIK CHANDRABAGI
     W/O. PARAMESHWARA H. NAIK
     AGEDE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
     HOUSEHOLD WORKER

3.   KUMARI. VEENA NAIK
     D/O. PARAMESHWARA H. NAIK,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     HOUSEHOLD WORKER

4.   KUMARI. PADMALATHA NAIK
     D/O. PARAMESHWARA H. NAIK,
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
     HOUSEHOLD WORKER

     THE APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE
     RESIDING AT HUBBANGERI
     (BADUHUBBANAGERI) VILLAGE,
     KUMTA TALUK,
     UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT-581 343.           ...APPELLANTS

              (BY SRI SRIKANTH B., ADVOCATE)
                              2



AND:

1.     PRABHU H.T.,
       S/O. H.B.TURUVAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
       DRIVER OF MOTOR BIKE
       BEARING REG. NO.KA-17-EB-9519
       RESIDING AT HUVINAMADU VILLAGE,
       DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577 004.

2.     SRI ANJINAPPA H.
       S/O MALLAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       DRIVER OF MOTOR BIKE
       BEARING REG. NO.KA-17-EB-9519
       RESIDING AT LOKIKERE VILLAGE
       DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577 002.

3.     THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       REGIONAL OFFICE, MELAGIRI PLAZA,
       M.C.C. 'B' BLOCK,
       DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD,
       DAVANAGERE-577 004.              ... RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI ANOOP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
         SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
              SRI NAGESH P., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                       R1 IS SERVED)

     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.04.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.958/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, DAVANAGERE,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3



                        JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned

counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 12.04.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.958/2011 on the file of

the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Davanagere

('the Tribunal' for short) questioning the dismissal of the claim

petition.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3. It is the claim of the claimants that Raghavendra

P. Naik, who sustained injuries in the accident had succumbed to

the injuries. Hence, claim petition was filed and in order to

substantiate their claim, examined the first claimant as P.W.1

and the Doctor as P.W.2 who treated the injured at A.J. Hospital

and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P100. On the other

hand, the respondent No.3-Insurance Company has not led any

evidence but, got marked the copy of the policy as Ex.R1.

4. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the claim

petition on the ground that there is no nexus between the cause

of death and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased.

Hence, the present appeal is filed.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants before this Court is that the Tribunal committed an

error in coming to such a conclusion. The counsel mainly relied

upon the documents Exs.P7, P9 and P10 i.e., the discharge

summaries to prove the fact that the injured had taken the

treatment intermittently and while proceeding to his native

place, on account of giddiness and weakness, he was taken to

A.J. Hospital on 01.05.2011 and on the same day, he succumbed

to the injuries and the said fact has not been considered by the

Tribunal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-

Insurance Company would submit that though these documents

evidence the fact that the injured had taken the treatment

intermittently, he had suffered only crush injury of right foot and

#2, 3, 4 metatarsal with tendon tear of 4th toe and the same is

not connected to cause of death and the cause of death is on

account of heart attack and the same is evident from the

document at Ex.P100.

7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, no doubt, there is no

dispute with regard to the accident and the fact that he had

sustained injuries to his leg, he was treated intermittently thrice

in terms of Exs.P7, P9 and P10 and while proceeding to his

native place, on account of giddiness and weakness, he was

taken to A.J.Hospital on 01.05.2011, wherein he died and no

post mortem was conducted. However, cause of death is on

account of heart attack. When such being the material on record

and he was under continuous treatment from 16.03.2011 to till

his death, the claimants have only examined the Doctor of A.J.

Hospital, wherein he last admitted. When the deceased has

been admitted to hospital intermittently thrice, the claimants

ought to have examined the Doctors, who gave the treatment

intermittently as to whether the accidental injuries would lead to

death and the fact that he was under continuous treatment is

not in dispute. When such being the material on record, the

Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation towards

medical expenses, which he incurred when he was admitted to

hospital as inpatient thrice. Hence, the matter requires to be

remanded to the Tribunal and the same is remanded to consider

the same afresh. The claimants and the respondents are given

liberty to adduce additional evidence, if any before the Tribunal.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

      (ii)    The impugned judgment and award of the
              Tribunal   dated     12.04.2013    passed    in

M.V.C.No.958/2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider the same afresh.

(iii) Both the parties and their respective counsels are directed to appear before the Tribunal on

16.12.2022 without expecting any separate notice from the Tribunal.

(iv) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from today since, it is the matter of the year 2011.

(v) The parties and their respective counsels are directed to assist the Tribunal for disposal of the case within the stipulated time.

(vi) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith to enable the Tribunal to take up the matter on 16.12.2022.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST