Partly allowed

Chanrappa S/O Ramanna Vadavani v. A.R. Alagur

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2019MFA/20023/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs 33,111/ in a death case. The High Court held that while the nexus between injuries and death was not fully proven, the awarded compensation was lower than appropriate. The court enhanced the compensation to Rs 70,000/-, leading to an enhancement of Rs 36,889/-.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 36,889/- awarded to the appellants in addition to the amount already received, with interest.

Chanrappa S/O Ramanna Vadavani Vs A.R. Alagur — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶8

M.F.A.NO.20023/2013 (MVC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

CHANDRAPPA S/O RAMAPPA VADAVANI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC : COOLIE & AGRICULTURE R/O : SIDDAPUR, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT NOW AT 4^TH CROSS, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOTE.

¶11

TULASAVVA W/O CHANDRAPPA VADAVANI AGE : 55 YEARS, OCC : COOLIE, R/O: SIDDAPUR, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, NOW AT 4^TH CROSS, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOTE.

¶12

... APPELLANTS.

¶13

(BY SRI P N HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

A.R. ALAGUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, (OWNER OF MAXI CAB NO. KA-28/4519) R/O : SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶16

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE, FOR R.2; R.1 – NOTICE SERVED.)

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.6.2012, PASSED BY THE MACT-III, BAGALKOTE, IN MVC NO.845/2007, ETC.,.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, P.G.M.PATIL, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The claimants being aggrieved by the

¶24

judgment and award dated 12.6.2012, passed in MVC No.845/2007, by the MACT-III, Bagalkote, have filed this appeal.

¶25

It is the case of the claimants before the tribunal that on 3.2.2006, at about 6.00 p.m., one Mallappa S/o.Chandrappa Vadavani was standing on the left side of Bilgi-Galagi PWD road, near Devathimar (Temple) at Siddapur village. At that

¶26

¶27

time a maxi cab bearing registration No.KA25/4519 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said Mallappa causing fatal injuries. He was shifted to Government hospital, Bilgi and thereafter he was referred to Kumareshwar Hospital, Bagalkote, subsequently he was referred to KLE Hospital, Belagavi. Subsequently the injured died on 12.5.2006 in the hospital of Dr.Kerudi at Bagalkote. Therefore the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of `23,25,000/against the owner and insurer of the maxi cab.

¶28

In pursuance of the notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their objections. Respondent No.1 denied the petition averments as false and vexatious. He has denied age, income and occupation of the deceased. He has contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of his vehicle.

¶29

¶30

He has further stated that his vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 and in case of any liability, it may be fixed against respondent No.2.

¶31

Respondent No.2 has filed the objections contending that the claim petition is false and frivolous. He has denied that the vehicle of respondent No.1 was insured as on the date of accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the maxi cab. He has denied age, occupation and income of the deceased. No charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and no postmortem report is produced to show the cause of death. The death of the deceased is not due to injuries sustained in the alleged accident. The driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and therefore he is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of

¶33

¶34

their claim, the claimants got examined three witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked 79 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.79. The insurer has got examined his witness as RW.1 and got marked one document as Ex.R.1.

¶35

The tribunal, after hearing both the

¶36

parties, recorded the finding that the death of the deceased was not due to the injuries sustained in the accident and therefore the claimants are entitled for only reimbursement of medical expenses and attendant charges and accordingly awarded the compensation of `33,111/with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶37

The claimants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment have filed the present appeal seeking compensation under all the heads available to them.

¶38

¶39

We have heard the leaned counsel for

¶40

the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of PW.3 Dr.Prabhayya Prabhuswamymath is sufficient to prove that the deceased died in consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore the claimants are entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency and other heads.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent insurer supported the impugned judgment and further submitted that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and that neither the death of the deceased was reported to the police nor there is any postmortem examination report to prove the cause of death. Further the matter was also not reported to the police after the death of the deceased.

¶42

¶43

The evidence of PW.3 goes to show that the deceased was brought to his hospital on 12.5.2006 and he died in his hospital on the same day. He has stated that, on the basis of the medical records of the deceased, he is of the opinion that the deceased might have developed respiratory problems due to the injuries suffered by him previously. However in his cross examination PW.3 has stated that the deceased died due to pneumonia and therefore it was not reported to the police nor postmortem examination was conducted. He has admitted that pneumonia is caused due to formation of cough in the lungs. Therefore the evidence of PW.3 is not at all sufficient to prove that Mallappa died due to the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 3.2.2006.

¶44

Admittedly the accident occurred on 3.2.2006 at 6.00 p.m. and the deceased died on

¶45

¶46

12.5.2006 in the hospital of PW.3. It is also on record that the deceased was admitted as inpatient only for 16 days in KLE Hospital, Belagavi and thereafter he was not at all treated as inpatient. Therefore the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was under continuous medical treatment from the date of accident till the date of his death and that there is nexus between the injuries suffered by the deceased in the motor accident and his death. Admittedly after the death of the deceased neither postmortem examination was conducted nor the death was reported to the police. Under these circumstances, we agree with the findings recorded by the claims tribunal that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However the claims tribunal has awarded only 23,111/towards medical expense and 10,000/- towards attendant charges, which is on the lower side.

¶47

¶48

In the fact situation we are inclined to enhance the compensation towards medical expenses by 50,000/- and 20,000/- towards attendant charges. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of 70,000/- as against 33,111/-. Therefore the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of `36,889/with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶49

Accordingly the appeal stands allowed in part awarding the enhanced compensation of `36,889/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The judgment and award stands modified accordingly.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

SD/JUDGE

¶52

Mrk/-

Chanrappa S/O Ramanna Vadavani v. A.R. Alagur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanrappa S/O Ramanna Vadavani v. A.R. Alagur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baburao Gangadhar Doddannawar, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mahaboobsab S/O Sannaharjarathsab Makandar, Vs State of Karnataka

The Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri.Basavanni Ramu Chogule

Lakshmi @ Gollara Lakshmi W/O. Gollara Thippaiah Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt.Talkal Savitramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

A.S. Impex Vs M/S.Shree Durga Traders