Karnataka High Court
Yallappa S/O Basavantappa Uppar vs N W K R T C., Central Office on 27 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4585
MFA No. 21980 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21980 OF 2012 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. YALLAPPA
S/O. BASAVANTAPPA UPPAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
1A. SMT. PARAVVA
W/O. YALLAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. KYARAKOPPA,
TAL & DIST: DHARWAD.
1B. SMT. MANJAVVA
W/O. PRAKASH HUDEDAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
ROHAN
HADIMANI OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
T R/O. NANDAGHAD,
Digitally signed by
ROHAN HADIMANI T
TAL: KHANAPUR,
Date: 2024.02.29
10:36:41 +0530
DIST: BELGAUM.
1C. SMT. SHOBHA
W/O. ASHOK HUDEDAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NANDGHAD,
TAL: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELGAUM.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4585
MFA No. 21980 of 2012
1D. BASAVARAJ YALLAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. KYARAKOPPA,
TAL & DIST: DHARWAD.
1E. SHRIKANT
S/O. YALLAPA UPPAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. KYARKOPPA,
TAL & DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
N.W.K.R.T.C,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
HUBLI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND M.A.C.T, DHARWAD, IN M.V.C
NO.486/2004 DATED 23.02.2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSITCE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4585
MFA No. 21980 of 2012
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the injured who
has subsequently died, seeking for enhancement of
compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 23.02.2012 passed in MVC.No.486/2004 on the file of
the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT., Dharwad (for
short, the 'Tribunal')
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are
that, the deceased was trying to board new KSRTC bus, at
that time, the driver of the bus bearing Regn.No.KA-25/F-
725 at Kyarakoppa bus stand suddenly drew the same in
rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules
and dashed to the deceased which resulted in sustaining
grievous injuries to his pelvis hip joint left foot and other
lacerated injuries.
3. It is averred that the deceased was taken to Lady
of Lurdas Charitable Hospital, Kelageri road (German
Hospital, Dharwad) and he was admitted for more than 8
days and thereafter, he has got admitted to Civil Hospital,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4585
Dharwad for further treatment for more than 6 months and
even thereafter, the treatment was continued. He filed claim
petition seeking for compensation. It is further averred that
during the pendency of the claim petition, the said Yallappa
died on 13.12.2008 and the legal heirs of the deceased
Yallappa were brought on record.
4. The respondent/Corporation has entered
appearance and filed objections denying the averments
made in the claim petition. They denied the age, income and
avocation of the deceased. They also denied that the driver
of the bus was negligent and was responsible in causing the
accident and there is no nexus between the death of
Yallappa and the accident.
5. The claimants examined three witnesses as PWs.1
to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P23. The respondent has not
addressed any evidence.
6. The Tribunal considering the evidence available
on record has allowed the claim petition in part by awarding
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4585
compensation of Rs.12,050/- towards medical expenses.
Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
7. Sri. Vijaykumar B.Horatti, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has
committed a grave error in not awarding the compensation
under other heads as the deceased Yallappa died on
13.12.2008 and the death is due to the injuries suffered by
him in the road traffic accident dated 25.06.2003. Hence, the
Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation to the
dependents of the deceased and also ought to have awarded
the compensation for the loss of future prospects of the
appellant. Hence, he seeks to modify the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal by awarding appropriate
compensation for the death of Sri. Yallappa.
8. Per contra, Sri. M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/Corporation supports the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for medical
expenses is nothing but it is his loss of estate. It is submitted
that the Tribunal after taking note of the evidence available
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4585
on record has come to a definite conclusion that, there is no
nexus between the accident and the death of the said
Yallappa. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
9. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the memorandum of
appeal as well as the records of the Tribunal.
10. The following point would arise for consideration
in this appeal:
Whether the appellants/claimants would be
entitled for the enhanced compensation?
11. My answer to the above point would be 'Negative'
for the following reasons:
12. The primary contention of the
appellants/claimants is that Sri. Yallappa B.Uppar while
trying to board the bus on 25.06.2003, the driver of the bus
owned by the respondent/Corporation suddenly drove it in
rash and negligent manner caused injuries to the deceased
Yallappa for which, he has taken treatment at Lady German
Hospital, Dharwad initially and thereafter, at Civil Hospital,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4585
Dharwad. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the
said Yallappa has died on 13.12.2008.
13. On perusal of the evidence of PW3 -
Dr. Mahantesh Hanchnal, Orthopedic Surgeon, Dharwad
claimed to be the treated doctor, has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that he has examined the deceased
finally on 21.09.2008 and issued disability certificate and
further opined that the deceased Yallappa has died due to
sudden cardiac arrest due to septic thrumbo-embolism
arising out of recurrent cellulitis of left thigh secondary to
blunt injuries to left thigh and pelvis sustained in road traffic
accident on 25.06.2003. This Court on close analysis of the
evidence of the PW3, evidence of PW1 and other medical
records, is of the considered view that the PW3 is not a
treated Doctor of said Yallappa from beginning to till his
death and he is admittedly an Orthopedic Surgeon. His
opinion with regard to the death of the said Yallappa is that,
death is due to sudden cardiac arrest, can be believed to
certain extent. However, his further opinion that death has
arisen due to septic on the left thigh and due to road traffic
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4585
accident on 25.06.2003 cannot be believed. The evidence of
PW3 has not been corroborated with any other evidence.
Hence, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence of
the treated Doctor, this Court is of the view that PW3 is
neither assigned any detailed reasons nor he has relied on
any of the medical literature as to how he has come to the
conclusion that the death of the deceased Yallappa has
caused due to septic and the said septic is caused due to the
road accident on 25.06.2003. This Court is saying so for the
simple reason that, from the date of the accident to the date
of the death, there is a long gap of more than 5 years.
Hence, the evidence of PW3 cannot be believed and it cannot
be held that the deceased Yallappa as died due to the road
accident happened on 25.06.2003. This Court is of the
considered view that the appellants have failed to prove that
the deceased Yallappa died due to the road traffic accident
dated 25.06.2003.
15. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence
available on record has recorded categorical finding that
there is no nexus between the road traffic accident dated
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4585
25.06.2003 and the death of the said Sri. Yallappa and
proceeded to award compensation of Rs.12,050/-.
16. This Court does not find any error in the findings
recorded by the Tribunal calling for interference in the
present appeal.
17. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is
devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
