Karnataka High Court
Smt Rathna vs The Manager on 13 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46088
MFA No. 5925 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 464 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5925 OF 2018 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2019(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.5925/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.RATHNA,
W/O LATE CHELUVARAJU N.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
2. POORVI C.R.,
D/O LATE CHELUVARAJU N @ CHELUVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.
3. SAHITHYA C.R.,
D/O LATE CHELUVARAJU N @ CHELUVARAJU,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.
signed by JAI
JYOTHI J
Location: 4. NARAYANAPPA,
HIGH S/O LATE CHANNAPPA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.28, HEJJALA VILLAGE AND POST,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE )
AND:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46088
MFA No. 5925 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 464 of 2019
1. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN
BUILDING, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 1.
(INSURER OF OFFENDED VEHICLE MOTOR
BIKE BEARING NO.KA-05-JT-0341)
2. MR. S.DURAI,
S/O SHANMUGAM,
NO.20/2, 12TH MAIN,
CHANDRANAGAR,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BSK 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 78.
(R.C OWNER OF OFFENDED VEHICLE MOTOR
BIKE BEARING NO KA-05-JT-0341)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2022 NOTICE TO
R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7599/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MACT,
MEMBER, BENGALURU (SCCH-1), PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.464/2019
BETWEEN:
MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN
BUILDING, HUDSON CIRCLE,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46088
MFA No. 5925 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 464 of 2019
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RATHNA,
W/O LATE CHELUVARAJU N.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
2. POORVI C.R.,
D/O LATE CHELUVARAJU N @ CHELUVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS.
3. SAHITHYA C.R.,
D/O LATE CHELUVARAJU. N @ CHELUVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.
4. NARAYANAPPA,
S/O LATE CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.28,
HEJJALA VILLAGE AND POST,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 109.
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
1ST RESPONDENT/MOTHER.
5. MR.S.DURAI,
S/O SHANMUGAM,
NO.20/2, 12TH MAIN,
CHANDRA NAGARA,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
B.S.K 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:46088
MFA No. 5925 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 464 of 2019
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R2 AND R3 MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1;
R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7599/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MACT,
BENGALURU, (SCCH-1), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.15,90,190/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC
No.7599/2016 dated 14.11.2017, the Insurance Company
is before this Court.
2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation
of an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- for the death of the
deceased in the accident. Initially, the deceased/injured
himself filed the petition for the injuries sustained by him.
The accident had taken place on 23.10.2016 he was
inpatient from 23.10.2016 to 26.11.2016 and he died on
20.12.2016. Thereafter Legal representatives came on
record, and they sought compensation for the death of the
deceased. The Court below has observed that in this case,
NC: 2023:KHC:46088
the doctor is not examined and there is no nexus between
the injuries and the death and there is no medical
evidence regarding the cause of death. The Court has
observed that on account of the accident wound, the
deceased had only sustained injury and granted
compensation of an amount of Rs.15,90,190/-.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company submits that initially the deceased, who
sustained injuries, had filed the petition for compensation.
Thereafter, he died and now compensation is sought for
the death of the deceased. The learned counsel submits
that in the evidence the wife of the deceased categorically
admitted that she has not produced any document to show
that her husband passed away on account of accidental
injuries. In such a scenario, the Court ought not to have
granted compensation for the death of the deceased. The
learned counsel submits that they are only entitled for the
compensation to the injuries sustained by the deceased.
The Court went wrong in observing that without there
NC: 2023:KHC:46088
being any evidence, the Court can still consider and
assume that it is on account of the injuries sustained by
the claimant in the accident.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the claimant submits that the Court below had rightly
considered the evidence and granted the compensation.
Though there is no post mortem report, no doctor is
examined Court has assumed that because of the injuries
sustained by him, he died. It is submitted that no grounds
are made out seeking interference with the well considered
order passed by the Court below.
5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record.
6. In this case, initially the claim petition was filed for
the injuries sustained by the claimant. Later, he died and
Legal representatives were brought on record and the
claim petition was amended seeking compensation for the
death. In such a case, the burden lies on the claimant to
show by examining the doctor and by adducing other
NC: 2023:KHC:46088
evidence that the injuries sustained in the accident led to
the death of the deceased. Unfortunately, in this case, no
such evidence is placed on record. Still the Court comes to
the conclusion that without any evidence, that he
succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.
7. The said finding of the Tribunal is not correct. The
burden lies on the claimant to prove the same, and unless
and until such burden is discharged they are only entitled
to compensation for injuries, but not for the death of the
deceased. Balancing the interests of both the parties, this
Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the
Court below by giving an opportunity to the claimant to
adduce the medical evidence that the injuries led to the
death of the deceased and by giving an opportunity to the
Insurance Company to cross examine and to lead further
evidence. If any based on the evidence, the Court comes
to the conclusion that there is no nexus between the
injuries and the death, the Court below shall still consider
the case of the claimants as far as the injuries sustained
NC: 2023:KHC:46088
by the deceased are concerned and shall grant the
compensation.
8. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is
allowed, judgment and award dated 14.11.2017 in
MVC.No.7599/2016 is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the Court below for consideration on the
aspect whether the deceased died because of the injuries
sustained by him in the accident, if it is held against
claimants then the Court shall determine the
compensation for injuries.
i. Without further notice, the parties shall
appear before the Court below on 18.01.2024.
ii. Within four months from 18.01.2024, the
Court below shall decide the same by giving
due opportunity to both the parties.
iii. The Registry shall send the lower Court
record along with a copy of this order forthwith.
NC: 2023:KHC:46088
iv. The amount that is deposited by the
Insurance Company shall be kept in a fixed
deposit in Nationalized Bank.
SD/-
JUDGE
RMS
