Chaluvaraj vs Basavaraj
2023 Latest Caselaw 638 Kant

                                         MFA.7166/2014
                            1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

              MFA NO.7166 OF 2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

      CHALUVARAJ
      S/O KRISHNAIAH
      DEAD BY HIS LRS

1.    MANJAMMA
      W/O LATE CHALUVARAJ
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

2 . KUM RADHIKA
    D/O LATE CHALUVARAJ
    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

3 . MURUGA
    S/O LATE CHALUVARAJ
    AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

4 . VENKATESHA
    S/O LATE CHALUVARAJ
    AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

      LR'S NO.1 TO 4 ARE
      ALL RESIDING AT
      KURUBARA VITTALAPURA VILLAGE
      BHADRAVATHI-577301.             ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI MANJUNATHA PATTANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . BASAVARAJ
    S/O PAKEERAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                                             MFA.7166/2014
                           2

   R/A II CROSS, GOPALA
   SHIMOGA-577201.

2 . KSRTC
    SHIMOGA DIPOT BY ITS MANAGER
    SHIMOGA-577201.

3 . THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
    KSRTC
    DAVANAGERE DIVISION
    DAVANAGERE-577001.                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A.SWAMY, ADVOCATE
 FOR R2 AND R3;
 VIDE ORDER DATED 4.3.2016, NOTICE TO R1
 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.06.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.115/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND ADDITIONAL MACT-11,
BHADRAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION     AND    SEEKING   ENHANCEMENT      OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 02.12.2022 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                  JUDGMENT

In this appeal the appellant has challenged the

judgment dated 17.06.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.

115/2000 by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl.MACT-11,

Bhadravathi ('the Tribunal' in short).

MFA.7166/2014

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that, the 1st

appellant is the wife, 2nd to 4th appellants are the

children of Cheluvaraj, the deceased. On 30.01.2000

at about 2.30 p.m., deceased was hit by a KSRTC

bus bearing No.KA-17/F-26 at Mavinakere village

causing him fracture of left femur. He was treated at

Mc.Gann Hospital, Shivamogga. Deceased moved the

Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries. On

29.08.2005, deceased died. The appellants have

moved the Tribunal for amendment of the petition,

that there is nexus between the accident and death

of the deceased.

3. The claim was opposed by the respondents

that, there was no nexus between the accident to

the death of the deceased and the appellants are not

entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal recorded

its findings that there was no nexus between the

accident and to the death of the deceased and MFA.7166/2014

awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses

incurred by the appellants.

4. Heard the arguments of Sri.Manjunatha

Pattanashetty, learned counsel for the appellants and

Smt. Sumangala A. Swamy, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

5. According to the learned counsel for the

appellants on 30.01.2000 accident took place

causing fracture of left leg of the deceased, he was

under continuous treatment till his death, the

appellants have led the evidence to this effect, the

death of deceased has direct nexus with the

accident, but the Tribunal ignored it, awarded

Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and sought

for re-assessment of the compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.2 and 3 contended that accident was in the year

2000, deceased had taken treatment, was MFA.7166/2014

discharged from the hospital, he went to the hospital

in the year 2002 and 2004, he had undergone

extraction of K-nail, he was completely cured, the

time gap of more than five years from the date of

accident till his death, there is no nexus, therefore,

the Tribunal has rightly disallowed the claim and she

has supported the impugned judgment.

7. I gave my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced on both sides and perused the

materials on record.

8. As seen from the records, there is no dispute

as to the accident that took place on 30.01.2000

that a KSRTC bus hit against the deceased causing

him the fracture of left femur, and was treated at

Mc.Gann Hospital at Shivamogga. Ex.P14/OPD slip

points out that on 11.03.2002 the deceased

underwent follow-up treatment. Ex.P16 discharge

summary shows on 31.12.2004, the deceased was

admitted to the hospital for K-nail extraction and MFA.7166/2014

was discharged on 19.01.2005. The death was

occurred on 29.08.2005. As seen from the records,

though the appellants claim that the deceased has

suffered gangrene, which caused the death, but the

materials relied upon by them did not support their

version.

9. As seen from the medical records, the

deceased was treated in the hospital, injury was

healed, even K-nail was extracted. There is no

medical evidence that the deceased ever taken

treatment for the Gangrene. Hence the evidence

placed by the appellants did not speak of the cause

of death of the deceased was connected with the

fracture. The dead body of the deceased was not

subjected to autopsy nor was the appellants able to

place evidence by examining the treating/treated

Doctor. No doubt, the appellants are the wife and

children of the deceased, he died on 29.08.2005, but

it is their duty to establish the nexus between death MFA.7166/2014

of the deceased to the accident. The evidence on

record failed to explain this aspect. Hence, I do not

find any reason to accept the version of the

appellants.

10. Exs.P7 to 26 medical bills explain, a sum of

Rs.5,855/- was spent towards treatment. Keeping

Ex.P14/OPD slip the follow-up in the year 2002 and

Ex.P16/hospital records for K-nail extraction and

money has been spent for treatment and follow-up.

Taking into consideration all these aspects, the

Tribunal has assessed Rs.10,000/- towards medical

expenses. Considering the evidence on record, the

Tribunal ought to have assessed the medical

expenses viz., money spent towards treatment and

follow-up and also for K-nail extraction and the

incidental expenses would also be taken into

consideration, but assessment of Rs.10,000/- is on

lower side, it ought to have been minimum of

Rs.25,000/-. Except this, I do not find any reason to MFA.7166/2014

support the claim of the appellants. Hence, the

grounds urged by the appellants have no supporting

evidence except for the expenses incurred towards

treatment.

11. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be

allowed and in the result I pass the following order:

The appeal is hereby allowed in part.

The appellants are entitled to Rs.25,000/-

instead of Rs.10,000/- towards treatment expenses

of the deceased Cheluvaraj.

The claim of the appellants for assessment of

the compensation as dependants of deceased

Chaluvaraj stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-