Karnataka High Court
Sangangouda And Anr vs Gurappa And Ors on 1 December, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
MFA No. 200228 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200228 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SANGANGOUDA S/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC NIL,
2. SUNANDA W/O SANGANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC NIL,
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF HADAGALI
TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
SOMANATH
PENTAPPA MITTE
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. GURAPPA S/O SHANTAPPA BERAGERI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,
R/O SHIVALINGESHWAR TEMPLE,
TALUK: AFZALPUR, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI-58101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
1ST FLOOR, BIDARI COMPLEX,
S.S FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
MFA No. 200228 of 2021
3. LAXMI W/O NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
R/O SHUNGTHAN, TALUK: SINDAGI,
DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 16.03.2021 NOTICE TO R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO,
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS
CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2019 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MACT-XII, AT VIJAYAPURA, IN M.V.C.NO.1108/2016.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
C.M.JOSHI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the judgment in
MVC.No.1108/2016 dated 10.04.2019 by learned III
Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT-XII, Vijayapur,
whereby the petition came to be partly allowed, the
claimants are before this Court in appeal.
2. The factual matrix is as below:
The petitioners alleged that on 26.11.2006, the
deceased-Ninganagouda Patil was riding his motorcycle
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
bearing No.KA-28/K-2472 on Afzalpur-Balurgi road and a
Cruiser Jeep bearing No.KA-29/M-2089 came on a wrong
side and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. It was
contended that the deceased fell down and sustained
injuries and he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Afzalpur,
then to Govt. Hospital, Kalaburagi and thereafter to
Ashwini Hospital, Solapur. It is contended that the
petitioners have spent more than Rs.12,00,000/- and
ultimately, he died. They contended that the deceased was
doing business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and
was aged about 33 years and therefore, the petitioners be
awarded adequate compensation.
3. On being issued with the notice by the Tribunal,
the respondent No.1- owner of the Cruiser Jeep and the
respondent No.3-the wife of the deceased did not appear
despite proper service and as such, placed ex-parte. The
respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed
objections to the petition. The respondent No.2 contended
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
that the accident was not due to negligence of the driver
of the Cruiser Jeep and it also denied that the death of the
deceased-Ninganagouda was due to accidental injuries.
They also contended that the deceased filed
MVC.No.2050/2013, which has been dismissed. Inter-alia
it denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased
and nexus between the death and the accidental injuries.
However, the Insurance Company admitted that the
Cruiser Jeep was insured by it and the policy was in force.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The petitioner No.1
was examined as PW.1 and an eyewitness was examined
as PW2. Exs.P1 to P3 were marked on their behalf. The
respondent No.2 produced copy of the policy as per Ex.R1.
5. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held
that there was no nexus between the accident and the
death of the deceased-Ninganagouda and consequently, it
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
partly allowed the petition granting only the medical
expenses.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
petitioners are before this Court in appeal.
7. On issuance of notice, the respondent No.2-
Insurance Company appeared through its counsel. Notice
to respondent Nos.1 and 3 were dispensed with.
8. We have heard the arguments by both the sides
and have perused the Trial Court records.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners contend that the accident had occurred on
26.11.2006 and due to the severe injuries, the deceased
was admitted to various hospitals for treatment, despite of
which, he could not recover and his health went on
deteriorating and ultimately he died on 29.04.2015.
Therefore, he contends that enormous medical records
show that the death was due to the injuries sustained in
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
the accident. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to
consider the voluminous evidence and erred in dismissing
the petition.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 contend that the accident had occurred in
the year 2006 and the deceased died in the year-2015 and
in between, in the year-2008, the deceased had married
the respondent No.3. Therefore, it is contended that there
is no nexus between the accidental injuries and the death.
It is submitted that the claim dies with the death of the
deceased, so far as the compensation for personal injuries
is concerned. Therefore, he supported the view of the
Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. The question that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether there is nexus between the accident
occurred on 26.11.2006 and the death of the deceased on
29.04.2015. The ocular evidence of PW.1, who is the
father of the deceased shows that the deceased had
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
sustained serious injuries like fracture of the right leg,
fracture of the left leg, right hand, left hand, injury on the
abdomen, injury to the head etc and he was treated at
various hospitals as mentioned in the petition. In the
cross-examination, it is elicited that the deceased married
in the year 2008 and after death of the deceased, his wife
Laxmi i.e., respondent No.3 had returned to her parental
house. Obviously, there were no children born to the
deceased and the respondent No.3.
12. The PW.2 happens to be the eyewitness to the
incident and his evidence would not be of relevance to
ascertain the nexus between the accident and the death.
The Ex.P4, the Wound Certificate shows the following
injuries:
i. Abrasion over face 1 X 3 cms at left forehead.
ii. Wound on right side of elbow.
iii. Wound on right side of the palm.
iv. Wound on left side of elbow.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
v. Wound on left side of the leg above the ankle
joint.
vi. Wound on the right side of the leg below knee.
13. The X-ray and other records show the fracture
of several bones and it was opined that six injuries were
grievous in nature.
14. The discharge summary produced at Exs.P8, 9,
10, 17 shows that he was in-patient from 27.11.2006 to
16.03.2007, 08.10.2010 to 12.10.2010, 21.01.2008 to
26.01.2008 and 11.08.2005 to 13.08.2005. It is evident
that the accident had taken place on 26.11.2006.
Obviously, the deceased was suffering from right sided
head-ache for last one to two years and therefore, he was
admitted to SP Institute of Neurosciences at Solapur in the
year 2005. Obviously, it was prior to the accident.
15. The petitioners have not adduced any evidence
to show the cause of the death of deceased-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
Ninganagouda. Obviously, there was no postmortem which
was conducted. The circumstances under which
Ninganagouda died is also not forthcoming from the
evidence. The injuries sustained by the deceased
Ninganagouda as mentioned at Ex.P4 do not show any
head injury. Therefore, it is not possible to attribute the
depression and such other neurological issues faced by
him to the injuries in the accident. Evidently, the Ex.P17
was pertaining to hospitalization prior to the accident.
Therefore, the nexus between the cause of death and the
accidental injuries is not established by the petitioners.
16. The Tribunal has observed that PW.1 married
after the accident and therefore, none of the documents
prove that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained
in the accident. We find no reason to interfere in the said
conclusion which is based on the evidence available on
record.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
17. Obviously, the deceased though filed a claim
petition in MVC.No.2050/2013, did not pursue the same.
After his death in the year 2015, the parents of the
deceased filed this claim petition. The injuries sustained by
the deceased are on his person and the claim in respect of
the personal injuries would end with his death. The
Tribunal has rightly observed that the doctrine of "Actio
personalis moritur cum persona" is applicable and the right
of action for tort is put to an end by the death of either
party, even if such action had been commenced in his
lifetime. Therefore, when there is no nexus between the
injuries and the cause of death is established, the claim for
the personal injuries of the deceased died with the death
of Ninganagouda.
18. The Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision in
the case of SHAILA AND ANOTHER VS.
K.S.MANJUNATH AND ANOTHER 1, wherein it was held
2015 ACJ-758
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
that the claimants are entitled for the medical expenses of
the deceased, since it was the petitioners who had spent
for the treatment of the deceased. It also relied on the
decision in the case of THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
PANDIYAN ROADWAYS VS. S.RAJALAKSHMI AND
OTHERS2.
19. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.2,86,000/- towards 'medical expenses', regarding
which, the expenditure details were produced by the
petitioners. We find that the conclusions reached by the
Tribunal to award the compensation in respect of the
medical expenses is fully justifiable and is in accordance
with law.
20. For aforesaid reasons, the appeal is bereft of
any materials. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
2000 AIHC 2337
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8946-DB
The judgment and award dated
10.04.2019 passed by learned III Additional
Senior Civil Judge & MACT-XII, Vijayapur in
MVC.No.1108/2016 is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/NR
