Arun Kumar @ Kumar vs V K Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 12513 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12513 Kant
Judgement Date : 17 October, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Arun Kumar @ Kumar vs V K Kumar on 17 October, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

                 M.F.A.No.6051/2014 (MV-D)

BETWEEN

ARUN KUMAR @ KUMAR
S/O KRISHNAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LR
SMT. PILLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
W/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
R/AT NO.187, VENKATAPPA COLONY
A.NARAYANAPURA, BEHIND LOURY
SCHOOL DOORVANINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 016.
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MURALIDHAR B N, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    V K KUMAR
      S/O KRIHSNA GOWDA, MAJOR
      R/OF VIJAYAPURA, CHIKKA ARKALGUD POST
      ARKALGUD TALUK
      HASSAN DISTRICT-573102

2.    THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
      RGIC, 28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR
      CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD
      BANGALORE-560 001
                                             ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C M JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 SRI H S LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                   2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.440/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

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


                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the

judgment and award dated 04.07.2013 passed in

M.V.C.No.440/2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident

Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short).

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No.2.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the injured on

24.05.2009 was traveling in Maruthi Omini van, by that time, the

driver of the lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the said van, as a result, he sustained injuries

and immediately he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, thereafter

he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and

Orthopedics and then he was shifted to HOSMAT hospital and he

was an inpatient at the first instance for a period of 7 days and

again he was admitted to the hospital and he was an inpatient

for a period of 5 days and thereafter he died after 14 months. At

the first instance, the injured himself has given the complaint

and filed the petition and thereafter legal representative was

brought on record. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on

the ground that there was no nexus between the cause of death

and also the injuries sustained by him and also rejected the

claim petition in respect of the medical expenses incurred by the

claimant and also the deceased when he took the treatment.

Hence, the present appeal is filed.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that the Tribunal has committed an error in not

considering the claim petition in its entirety and rejected the

same only on the ground that there was no nexus between the

injuries and also the cause of death. The counsel appearing for

the respondent No.2 would submit that in order to substantiate

that he was in continuous treatment, no material is placed

before the Tribunal and also he submits that the doctor has not

been examined in this regard hence, there is no material in the

appeal.

5. Having heard the arguments of the respective

counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the

material on record it is not in dispute that the accident was

occurred on 24.05.2009 and he was an inpatient at the first

instance for period of 7 days and thereafter within a span of 1½

months, again he was admitted to the hospital and he was an

inpatient for a period of 5 days and the records also discloses

that he was undergone for surgery of left frontal and parietal

holes was made and evacuation was done on 25.07.2009 and

thereafter i.e., from 25.07.2009 till his death i.e., on

27.09.2010, no material is placed before the Tribunal to show

that the injured was under continuous treatment and apart from

that the injured was died in the house itself and even in the

absence of PM report also, the Court can consider the claim

petition but the claimant has not produced any material to show

that for a period of 14 months, the injured was in continuous

treatment hence, I do not find any error committed by the

Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that there

was no nexus between the cause of death and the injuries

sustained by the injured.

6. However, the Tribunal has failed to take note of the

medical expenses which have been produced and marked as

Ex.P8 i.e., 45 medical bills to the tune of Rs.1,00,474.05. When

the injured was in continuous treatment on two occasions that is

in the month of May 2009 and also in the month of July 2009,

the Tribunal ought to have awarded the medical bills expenses.

Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the

conclusion that the petition itself is not maintainable as there

was no nexus and the said finding is erroneous and it requires

interference of this Court and the claimant is entitled for the

medical expenses.

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

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the

Tribunal dated 04.07.2013 passed in

M.V.C.No.440/2010 is modified granting

compensation of Rs.1,00,474.05 towards

medical expenses with interest at 9% per

annum from the date of petition till deposit.