Judgment :- (1) One Armugam, aged about 65 years sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 26-5-2001 while riding Kinetic Honda, to which another vehicle Kinetic Honda No. KA-03-ED/9577 belonging to respondent dashed. After taking the treatment for the accidental injuries, Armugam died on 9-9-2001. His wife and son filed claim petition under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer i.e., the appellant. Insurer filed statement of objections opposing the claim petition, inter alia contending that, there is no nexus between the death of Armugam and the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the issuance of policy and its validity as on the date of accident were not disputed. Based on the material pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. 2nd petitioner deposed as PW 1. Dr. Rajesh Gangavatikar, who treated Sri Armugam deposed as PW 1 and one Thanappa, an employee of the NIMHANS hospital deposed as PW 3. Exs. P1 to P11 were marked. For respondents ho evidence was led. Considering the rival contentions and appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has held that deceased Armugam sustained injuries in the accident by use of a motor vehicle. It considered the claim insofar as the amount spent towards medical expenses and incidental charges and hence, allowed the claim to an extent of Rs. 65,000/- with costs and interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till the date of realisation: Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. (2) Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the record. (3) Sri B. C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for appellant contended that the cause of death was not proved either by producing P. M. report or by examining the doctor who treated the deceased to substantiate the cause and Tribunal having held that there is no nexus for the injuries and the death, has erred in awarding Rs. 65,000/-towards medical expenses and incidental charges. He further contended that, the claim being Contrary to the position of law declared by this Court in ILR 1990 Kant 4300 and ILR 2002 Kant 1864, the impugned award calls for interference. 65,000/-towards medical expenses and incidental charges. He further contended that, the claim being Contrary to the position of law declared by this Court in ILR 1990 Kant 4300 and ILR 2002 Kant 1864, the impugned award calls for interference. (4) Sri L. Srinivas Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2/claimants, on the other hand contended that, the Tribunal has committed error in holding that there is no nexus between the injuries and the death. Learned counsel contended that, the evidence on record would establish that, deceased Armugam having sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident and while under treatment died. Hence, his wife and son are entitled to be compensated. (5) Keeping in view of the rival contentions and after perusal of the records, the point for consideration is : "Whether the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 65,000/-under the head medical and incidental charges?" (6) The accident, the actionable negligence and the coverage of insurance are not in dispute. Evidence of PW-1 shows that he is the son of S. Armugam. He has stated that his father while riding the Kinetic Honda scooter, met with an accident on 26-5-2001 on account of the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the offending scooter and sustained severe head injury and lost consciousness and his mother also sustained injury on right eye brow. His father was taken to HAL hospital where from he was referred to NIMHANS wherein he was treated and emergency craniotomy and evacuation of haematoma was done. Armugam was admitted at Command hospital AF and he was treated as an inpatient from 20-6-01 to 29-6-01 and thereafter, he took regular treatment as an out-patient despite which he could not recover and succumbed due to the sustaining of head injury in the road traffic accident. He has stated that his father was under treatment for a period of 31/2 months during which time, they have spent about Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses. (7) In the cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that he is working in Indian Air Force and the families of Airforce personnel are treated at Command hospital free of cost and that, his father prior to retirement was an employee of HAL hospital. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that retired HAL employees are also treated free of cost in HAL hospital. (7) In the cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that he is working in Indian Air Force and the families of Airforce personnel are treated at Command hospital free of cost and that, his father prior to retirement was an employee of HAL hospital. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that retired HAL employees are also treated free of cost in HAL hospital. Sri Armugam was treated for neural problems in NIMHANS where from he was directly taken to Command hospital for treatment. He has denied the suggestion that the medical bills produced are created for the purpose of the case and that he has not spent so much amount for treatment of his father. He has denied the suggestion that the death of his father has no nexus to the injury sustained in the accident. (8) P. W.-2 Dr. Rajesh Gangavatikar-General Surgeon, Command hospital has stated that S. Armugam had sustained emergency right temporal craniotomy haematoma on 25- 6-01 and he improved marginally but his condition deteriorated within 24 hours. Repeat CT Scan showed increase in size of left temporal contusion with mass effect and underwent emergency left temporal craniotomy and evacuation of left temporal contusion. Patient made gradual recovery and was transferred to Command hospital AF from NIMHANS for further treatment wherein, he was admitted on 20-6-01 with diagnosis of severe head injury with bilateral temporal contusion and haematoma (optd). At the time of admission, GCS was 9/15 and he had right hemi paresis and two large bed sores on both gluteal region. He was managed conservatively and his diabetes was controlled. Since no further surgical intervention was required, the patient was discharged on 28-6-01 with medical advice and review in neuro-surgical and endocrinology OPD. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that the patient was treated as MLC in the hospital. (9) PW 3-Thanappa an employee of NIMHANS has produced the records relating to treatment of S. Armugam in NIMHANS which have been marked at Ex. PH. (10) Ex. P1 is the FIR which shows that the accident occurred between two vehicles on 26-5-2001 and Armugam was injured. Ex. P2 is the wound certificate issued by HAL hospital which shows that Armugam met with an accident; no external injuries were found, however, there was haematoma and the patient Was referred to NIMHANS. Ex. PH. (10) Ex. P1 is the FIR which shows that the accident occurred between two vehicles on 26-5-2001 and Armugam was injured. Ex. P2 is the wound certificate issued by HAL hospital which shows that Armugam met with an accident; no external injuries were found, however, there was haematoma and the patient Was referred to NIMHANS. Ex. P3 is the wound certificate issued by Command hospital-AF which shows that Armugam was admitted on 20-6-01 and was discharged on 29-6-01 due to the injuries in a road traffic accident and the diagnosis shows severe head injury with bilateral temporal contusion haematoma (OPTD). The OPD treatment advised is also recorded therein. Ex. P4 is the copy of insurance policy. Ex. P6 is the police notice containing the details relating to the accident. Ex. P. 7 is the sketch of accident. Ex. P. 8 is the mahazar. Ex. P. 9 series are the bills for purchase of medicines for the treatment of S. Armugam for the period commencing from 26-5-2001. Ex. P. 10 is the discharge slip of Command hospital. (11) The evidence of record establishes that accident occurred on 26-5-2001, S. Armugam sustained head injury, took treatment at different hospitals and died on 9-9-01. The accidental injuries and the treatment are established through the documentary evidence referred to above as well as from the evidence of PW-2. It is true that there is no record showing conducting of post-mortem on the dead body of S. Armugam. Merely because body was not subjected to postmortem, it cannot be held that the death due to accidental injuries is not established. The medical records clearly establish that S. Armugam has taken treatment for the head injury at least, till 26-7-01. The receipt issued by HAL hospital on 26-7-01 shows that Armugam has paid hospital charges of Rs. 2,246/, There is evidence on record which shows that he took treatment as an out patient and the out patient record of NIMHANS produced through PW-3 also establishes the said fact. Armugam was aged 65 years as at the time of accident and was a diabetic patient. He was under treatment till the date of death i.e., for the head injury sustained in the road traffic accident. In the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that there is no nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of S. Armugam is not correct. He was under treatment till the date of death i.e., for the head injury sustained in the road traffic accident. In the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that there is no nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of S. Armugam is not correct. (12) The decision in the case of Kannamma v. Deputy General Manager (ILR 1990 (4) Kar 4300) was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Somashekar and others (MFA 522/92) disposed of on 27-7-93 and it was held that the claim petition presented under S. 110-A of the MV Act, 1939 by the person sustaining fatal injuries in a motor accident, claiming compensation for personal injuries as also for compensation towards expenses, loss of income etc. (loss to estate) can, on such person's death occurring as a result of consequence of fatal injuries sustained in a motor accident, be prosecuted by his/her legal representatives only insofar as the claim for compensation, in that, the claim petition relates to loss of estate of the deceased person due to fatal injuries sustained in the motor accident. (13) In the case of H. S. Chetan (deceased) by L. Rs. v. Chandra Mouli and another, reported in 2008 ACJ 191 : (2007 (4) AIR Kar R 192 : AIR 2007 (NOC) 1642), considering the Full Bench decision in the case of Uttamkumar v. Madhav (ILR 2002 Kar 1864), it has been held that if it is established that death of the injured is a result of injuries sustained by him in a road accident, the right to sue would accrue to the dependants to initiate petition seeking grant of compensation regarding loss of dependency, reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in terms of loss to estate and also under functional heads. (14) Keeping in view, the Division Bench decisions noticed to supra, explaining the scope of Full Bench decisions referred to supra, in my view, the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 65,000/- under the head medical expenses/incidental charges is just. The Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding the said sum inasmuch as the medical bills at Ex. P9 series issued by reputed hospitals like NIMHANS, Command hospital AF and HAL hospital duly establish the incurring of the medical expenditure to the tune of Rs. 43,500/- between the date of accident i.e. 26-5-01 till 9-9-01. The Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding the said sum inasmuch as the medical bills at Ex. P9 series issued by reputed hospitals like NIMHANS, Command hospital AF and HAL hospital duly establish the incurring of the medical expenditure to the tune of Rs. 43,500/- between the date of accident i.e. 26-5-01 till 9-9-01. For the treatment period of 31/2 months, the incidental expenses such as conveyance, attendant charges and nourished diet, can be at least, Rs. 25,000/-. The Tribunal has not committed any error in quantifying the medical and incidental expenses and in passing the award for Rs. 65,000/-. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and shall stand dismissed. No costs. The amount in deposit be transferred to MACT for effecting payment to the petitioners therein. Appeal dismissed.