Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt.Lalita W/O Shivarama Gaonkar on 22 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6638
MFA No. 103991 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103991 OF 2019 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
SAVITRI SADAN, OPP: KITTEL COLLEGE,
P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD.
NOW REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY (S),
NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LALITA W/O. SHIVARAMA GAONKAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. 3RD CROSS, LAXMI NAGAR,
DHARWAD-580001.
2. ANOOP S/O. ADIVEPPA MASUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
Digitally signed by
JAGADISH T R R/O. H.NO. 486, OM NIVAS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
CHIDAMBAR NAGAR, ANAGOL ROAD,
KARNATAKA BELGAUM-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ C. S, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. N. H. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF
THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS FROM THE LOWER COURT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL
AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 14.06.2019 PASSED BY THE THIRD ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION
DHARWAD, IN ECA NO.58/2014 WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6638
MFA No. 103991 of 2019
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
judgment and award dated 14.06.2019 passed in ECA No.58/2014 on
the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for
Employees Compensation (for short, 'Commissioner').
2. Heard Sri.M.Y.Katagi learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company, Sri.Sharanabasavaraj.C.S learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri.N.H.Patil learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer
submits that the Commissioner has committed grave error in
recording a finding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation for the accidental death of Sri.Narayan. It is submitted
that the respondents/Claimants have failed to discharge their primary
burden of establishing nexus between the injuries sustained by the
deceased Sri.Narayan and cause of death. The evidence of PW2 is not
clear as to the cause of death nor does the medical evidence
available on record indicate the cause of death. Hence, the
Commissioner has committed an error in saddling liability on the
Insurance Company by directing to pay the compensation. The
respondents/claimants failed to establish nexus between accidental
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6638
injuries and the death of Sri.Narayan. Hence, he seeks to allow the
appeal.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1
submits that the Commissioner has recorded detailed finding with
regard to the fact that the deceased Sri.Narayan succumbed to the
injuries in a road accident dated 13.01.2010. He submits that the
medical evidence available on record clearly indicates that the
deceased succumbed to the injuries due to the severe damage to his
brain. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the material available on record
including the trial Court records.
6. The material available on record indicates that on
13.01.2010 during the course of employment one Sri.Narayan
sustained fatal injuries, after providing treatment to him at Belgaum
Institute of Medical Science and Hospital, Belgaum and later at KIMS
hospital, Hubli, he succumbed to the injuries. In support of the claim
petition, the mother of the deceased entered witness box and
deposed with regard to the jural relationship of the employer and
employee. There is no dispute with regard to the same as well as the
income of deceased. With regard to the contention of the appellant
and the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident and the cause of
death is concerned, a suggestion is put to PW2 in the cross-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6638
examination that if a patient has sustained primary brain injury and if
his condition deterates further possibility of cause of death, PW2 has
answered the said question stating that it is possible. In cross-
examination, PW2 has clearly stated that initially the deceased was
treated at BIMS at Belgaum and in the discharge summary, it is
stated as primary brain injury. Keeping in mind the aforesaid oral
testimony of treated doctor, who is expert Neurologist and also
taking note of Ex.P7, it is evident that the deceased Sri.Narayan has
sustained primary brain injury and treatment has been provided to
him. The aforesaid exhibits makes further clear that CT Scan is
conducted by the said hospital which also indicates that the deceased
Sri.Narayan has sustained brain injury. Taking note of the oral
testimony of PW2 and other medical evidence available on record, it
can be fairly inferred that the deceased succumbed to the brain
injury due to the road accident. Though the claimant has not
produced the post-mortem report nor there is any document with
regard to clear opinion as regards to the cause of death to come to a
conclusion that there is no nexus between the accidental injuries and
cause of death. The oral testimony of PW2 and the other medical
evidence available on record clearly indicates that the deceased
sustained fatal injuries more particularly injury to his brain which has
resulted in death on 22.02.2010. Hence, there is no merit in the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6638
with regard to the nexus between the injury sustained by the
deceased and his death.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find
any perversity nor an error in finding recorded by the Commissioner
with regard to entitlement of compensation by the Commissioner and
liability.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find
any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The
amount in deposit shall be transmitted back to the Trial Court along
with records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
Ct-an
