Karnataka High Court
Tukaram Since Deceased His Lrs vs Venkatesh S/O Tukaram Jadav And Anr on 3 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2786
MFA No. 201264 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201264 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
TUKARAM SINCE DECEASED HIS LR'S,
1. BHEEMBAI W/O LATE TUKARAM NAYAK,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
2. VENKATESH
S/O LATE TUKARAM NAYAK,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
3. TIRUPATI
S/O LATE TUKARAM NAYAK,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
Digitally
signed by 4. RAVIKUMAR
SACHIN
Location:
S/O LATE TUKARAM NAYAK,
HIGH COURT
OF
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
KARNATAKA
5. CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O LATE TUKARAM NAYAK,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
ALL R/O HOSAKERA,
TQ: SHORAPUR, DIST: YADGIR,
NOW AT PRESENT PLOT NO.154,
JAYA NAGAR, SEDAM ROAD,
KALABURGI-585 103.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI JIDAGE KAILASH C., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2786
MFA No. 201264 of 2017
AND:
1. VENKATESH
S/O TUKARAM JADAV,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF JEEP,
R/O H.NO.LIG-68, ADARSH NAGAR,
TQ. & DIST: KALABURAGI-585 103.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET,
KALABURAGI-585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
V/O DTD. 25.01.2018 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2017 IN MVC NO.173/2011
PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT, KALABURAGI, IN AWARDING RS.33,000/- MAY
KINDLY BE MODIFIED TO RS.5,00,000/- ALONG WITH
INTEREST AT 12% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2786
MFA No. 201264 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Jidage Kailash C., learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned
counsel who is appearing for respondent No.2.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kalaburagi in MVC No.173/2011 dated 11.04.2017.
3. Initially, claim petition was filed by the injured
Tukaram, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained
by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on
13.07.2010. During the pendency of the case, Tukaram
passed away and therefore, his legal representatives came
on record. The legal representatives approached the
Tribunal taking a plea that the death of Tukaram is due to
the injuries sustained in the said accident.
4. Expressing its opinion that there is no nexus
between the injuries sustained and the cause of death and
thus, no amount can be awarded under the head 'loss of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2786
dependency', the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.33,000/-
as compensation under the following heads:
Towards medical expenses Rs.4,991/-
Towards attendant's charges, Rs.3,000/-
food and conveyance
Towards Loss of Estate Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.32,991/-
Rounded off Rs.33,000/-
5. Submitting that the deceased Tukaram died due
to the injuries sustained and the same is clear by the
evidence of PW.2, learned counsel for the appellants
contends that the appellants established the cause of
death and thus, they are entitled for compensation even
under the head 'loss of dependency'.
6. Vehemently opposing the submission thus
made, Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 submits that Tukaram died nine months
after the date of accident and the death is not due to the
injuries sustained and there is no material on record to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2786
show that the said death is due to the injuries sustained
and thus, the claim of the appellants is not maintainable.
7. To prove the genuineness of Ex.P8 - Death
Certificate, the appellants produced the evidence of PW.2-
Dr. Ramakant. However, by the submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear that the author
of Ex.P8 - Death Certificate was no more and therefore,
PW.2 who is a person who was associated with the author
of Ex.P8 was examined. PW.2 in chief examination gave a
single line statement that as per Ex.P8, the death is due to
complication of Osteomyelitis which septic shock leading to
Cardiac-arrest. Admittedly, the accident occurred on
13.07.2010. The injured Tukaram was admitted at
Basaveshwar General Hospital on the same day and he
was discharged on 11.08.2010. The date of death is on
21.05.2011. What was the condition of Tukaram after the
date of discharge is clarified nowhere. The nature of
treatment which Tukaram took for the injuries sustained
by him after the date of discharge is also not known. Due
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2786
to development of septic to which part of the body the
death occurred is also not known. When Tukaram was
shifted to hospital after the date of discharge from
Basaveshwar General Hospital, what kind of treatment was
taken and to which part of the body is also not known.
Therefore, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, without
material facts, the cause of death cannot be connected to
the injuries sustained. The appellants, who claim that
death is due to injuries, are under obligation and liability
to establish the said fact with cogent and convincing
evidence. However, in the case on hand, no such evidence
is produced. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
appeal lacks merits.
Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
