JUDGMENT 1. This is claimants appeal calling in question the correctness and legality of judgment and award passed by Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and MACT, Gokak in MVC No.2385/2001 dated 06.08.2008 whereunder claim petition has been dismissed on the ground that there is no nexus between injuries sustained in the accident and death of claimant. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay S Katageri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants and Sri Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri S.C.Jainer, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented. Perused the impugned award and also records secured from Tribunal. 3. One Smt.Ratnawwa filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation alleging that in a road traffic accident that occurred on 04.11.2001 at about 9.30 a.m. while she was proceeding from her house towards the house of her relative at Konnur Dupadhal road, Konnur village, driver of Jeep bearing No.KA.23/M-2088 driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction had dashed against her and caused the accident due to which, she sustained grievous injuries. On account of the injuries sustained, she was shifted to KHI hospital, Ghataprabha for treatment and a complaint was lodged before jurisdictional police namely, Rural Police, Gokak which was registered as Crime No. 131/2001 under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and thereafter they had filed charge sheet against the driver and on these grounds, she filed claim petition in MVC No.2835/2001 and sought for compensation. 4. During the pendency of claim petition, said Ratnawwa expired on 12.01.2002. Subsequently, applications were filed by legal heirs of Ratnawwa to come on record and to condone delay in filing L.R. application on 10.02.2006. Said applications came to be allowed by order dated 24.07.2006 with an observation that legal heirs of deceased Smt.Ratnawwa have to establish that deceased Smt.Ratnawwa died only due to injuries sustained in the accident. 5. Thereafter claimant No.1(a) got himself examined as P.W.1 on 22.11.2007 and also examined the Doctor who had treated deceased Smt.Ratnawwa as P.W.2 on 29.03.2008 and produced 62 documents and got them marked as Exs.P-1 to P-62. Respondents did not lead any oral evidence. Policy issued to the offending vehicle was got marked as Ex.R-1. 5. Thereafter claimant No.1(a) got himself examined as P.W.1 on 22.11.2007 and also examined the Doctor who had treated deceased Smt.Ratnawwa as P.W.2 on 29.03.2008 and produced 62 documents and got them marked as Exs.P-1 to P-62. Respondents did not lead any oral evidence. Policy issued to the offending vehicle was got marked as Ex.R-1. On the basis of evidence tendered by parties and after considering the arguments advanced by respective learned Advocates appearing for parties, Tribunal dismissed claim petition by holding that additional issue No.1 in the negative namely, by concluding that deceased Smt.Ratnawwa did not die consequent to the injuries sustained by her in the accident and there was no nexus between death and injuries sustained by her. It is this judgment and award that has been questioned by legal heirs of deceased Smt.Ratnawwa in this appeal. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for appellants- claimants contended that claimants had established nexus between injuries sustained by deceased Smt.Ratnawwa and she died due to said injuries. It is also contended that accident had taken place on 04.11.2001 and she underwent surgery on 27.11.2001 and during that period, she was in hospital and claim petition was filed on 10.12.2001 and she was discharged on 23.12.2001 and expired on 12.01.2002 and she had not completely recovered from the injuries sustained as spoken to by the Doctor - P.W.2 and contends that reasoning given by Tribunal to reject the claim petition is based on surmises and conjectures and as such, he seeks for setting aside the same. Learned Advocate appearing for appellants would rely on the evidence of Doctor - P.W.2 to buttress his argument that fracture of neck femur had not healed properly and even according to the Doctor deceased had developed complications after discharge and within 15 to 20 days thereafter, she had expired and as such it cannot be construed that there is no nexus to cause of death vis- à-vis injuries sustained by deceased. He would elaborate his submission by contending that Tribunal ought to have taken note of the fact that claimants are rustic villagers not knowing the procedural laws and as such, non-filing of application to come on record as legal heirs of deceased in time would by itself cannot be a ground to reject claim of the claimants and as such, he contends that Tribunal committed a serious error in not awarding compensation and dismissing claim petition. He would further submit that this Court in exercise of appellate powers can set aside the award passed by Tribunal and in view of the parties having tendered evidence in extenso, only formal computation is required to be made by this Court in the event of contentions raised on behalf of appellants are upheld and prays for compensation being awarded here itself. 7. Per contra, Sri Jainer, learned Advocate for Insurance Company would support the judgment and decree passed by Tribunal and he would draw the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.W.1 - son of original claimant wherein he has admitted that at the time of discharge, injuries sustained by his mother had healed and as such he contends burden was cast on the claimants to prove that death was due to injuries sustained in the accident and same has not been proved and as such, Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. He would also submit that when a criminal case has been filed against driver of offending vehicle, had the appellants herein reported the death of deceased Smt. Ratnawwa to the jurisdictional police at the stage of investigation, jurisdictional police would have taken appropriate steps to investigate into the matter and would have necessarily included Section 304(A) IPC in the charge sheet that was filed against the driver and admittedly no post-mortem was done and there being absolute laxity on the part of claimants to report the death to the jurisdictional police, it is clear that Smt,Ratnawwa's death was not on account of injuries sustained in the accident and it is shrouded with mystery and as such, claim petition dismissed by Tribunal does not call for interference. He would also submit that computation of compensation payable to appellants does not arise and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Sri Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 submits that Insurance Policy produced at Ex.R-1 was valid as on the date of accident and in the event of any liability is fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle, same has to be indemnified by the insurer i.e., respondent No.3 and as such, he prays for suitable orders being passed in this regard. 9. 9. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that following points would arise for consideration: (i) "Whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing claim petition by holding that there was no nexus between death of Smt.Ratnawwa to the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident that occurred on 04.11.2001? (ii) If answer to point No.(i) is in the negative, whether appellants would be entitled to compensation? And, (iii) If so, to what extent and what order?" Re: Point No.(i):- 10. Facts leading to filing of this appeal can be summarized as under: Claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cam to be filed by Smt.Ratnawwa on 10.12.2001 interalia contending that on 04.11.2001 at about 9.30 a.m., she was proceeding from her house to her relatives house at Konnur Dupadhal road, Konnur village by walking on the side of the road at that time, a jeep bearing No. KA.23/M.2088 driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her which came from opposite direction, on account of which, she fell down and sustained injuries all over body and was shifted to KHI Hospital, Ghataprabha; she was an inpatient for more than 45 days and claims that she has spent about Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses; it was also contended that as on the date of accident, she was hale and healthy and was carrying on vegetable vending business and was earning Rs.4,000/-per month and maintaining her family. On account of the injuries sustained, she was unable to carry on the said avocation and contends that except herself, there are no other earning member in the family and entire family was dependant on her income and as such, she sought for payment of compensation of Rs.6 lakhs. On service of notice, respondents appeared and filed their objections denying averments made in claim petition interalia contending that claim petition is filed with ulterior motive. 11. As seen from records of Tribunal, from the year 2002 onwards till 10.02.2006 matter came to be adjourned from time to time for recording of evidence of petitioner. On 10.02.2006 I.A.I and I.A.II were filed under Order 22 Rule 2 CPC and Section 5 of Limitation Act to bring her L.Rs. on record and for condonation of delay in filing the said application. On 10.02.2006 I.A.I and I.A.II were filed under Order 22 Rule 2 CPC and Section 5 of Limitation Act to bring her L.Rs. on record and for condonation of delay in filing the said application. Said applications were filed by appellants herein on the ground that they are entitled to prosecute claim petition since original claimant i.e., Smt.Ratnawwa had expired on 12.01.2002 and they have no knowledge about necessity of filing L.R. application and after receipt of letter from learned Advocate, they came to know about the pendency of claim petition. Tribunal, after considering the arguments of learned Advocates, allowed the said applications on 24.07.2006 by making observation to the following effect: "It is for the legal heirs to establish that deceased died only due to accidental injury by leading evidence." 12. Subsequently, respondent No.3 herein filed additional objections in view of amendment carried out to the claim petition wherein appellants had contended that deceased Smt.Ratnawwa had expired due to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 04.11.2001. It was specifically contended by respondent No.3 that deceased Smt.Ratnawwa did not die due to injuries sustained and petitioners were put to proof of the same. 13. It is thereafter son of deceased Smt.Ratnawwa -P.W.1 entered witness box and filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. He has been cross examined extensively. It has been specifically contended by him in paragraph 4 of examination-in-chief that deceased Smt.Ratnawwa had sustained fracture of hip portion and fracture of both legs apart from head injury and she had taken treatment at KHI Hospital, Ghataprabha and she never recovered from the said injuries and Doctor who was treating her had informed that she will not be able to recover and advised them to take her home and accordingly she was discharged from the hospital and 16 days thereafter, she expired on 12.01.2002. Suggestion made to the said witness that at the time of discharge, she had recovered has been accepted by P.W.1. In other words, it is admitted by P.W.1 that injuries sustained were healed up. By taking cue from this admission, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has contended that in view of categorical admission, it could be construed that there is no nexus to the cause of death and injury sustained. In other words, it is admitted by P.W.1 that injuries sustained were healed up. By taking cue from this admission, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has contended that in view of categorical admission, it could be construed that there is no nexus to the cause of death and injury sustained. Stray sentence in the cross examination would not form the basis to accept such contention and entire evidence has to be looked into not only in the background of records produced but also in the background of social strata from which they come from, particularly like appellants herein. They being rustic villagers not possessing worldly knowledge, and being ignorant of procedural laws and other related factors, certain amount of latitude has to be extended to them since by adopting such methods they would not have anticipated any gain. It is for this precise reason Tribunal allowed the application of appellants to come on record and also observed that appellants have to prove the cause of death. 14. In this background, when entire evidence is examined both oral and documentary tendered by parties, it cannot be construed that death of Smt.Ratnawwa was not on account of injuries sustained by her. To arrive at such conclusion, this Court has to see what were the injuries sustained by her with reference to evidence of Doctor who had been examined as P.W.2 namely, Dr.Kiran M. Vaidya who was consulting Orthopedic Surgeon and Chief Medical Officer, KHI Hospital, Ghataprabha and who has treated and carried out surgery on the deceased Smt.Ratnawwa. 15. P.W.2 has specifically stated in his examination- in-chief that deceased Smt.Ratnawwa was admitted to the hospital on 04.11.2001 and discharged on 23.12.2001 and she was operated on 27.11.2001. At this juncture, it requires to be noticed that if injury had healed as sought to be made out by learned Advocate for Insurance Company by taking cue from admission of P.W.1, then question that would arise is as to "why she remained in the hospital for more than 25 days after surgery?". Answer can be deciphered from the case sheet which came to be produced and marked as Ex.P-62. Perusal of same would go to show that blood pressure during the entire period of her stay at hospital was highly unstable. Answer can be deciphered from the case sheet which came to be produced and marked as Ex.P-62. Perusal of same would go to show that blood pressure during the entire period of her stay at hospital was highly unstable. Infact, the Doctors have recorded entries in the case sheet to the said effect and have specifically noted in the case sheet dated 20.12.2001 ie., three days prior to the date of discharge that at 6.00 p.m. as "irrelevant talk" and when other entries are read along with entry dated 20.12.2001 it would clearly establish that condition of Smt.Ratnawwa though was better, was not in a condition which can be accepted as good condition. Throughout the case sheet it is mentioned that she was complaining of severe pain in abdomen/constant pain at the area where she had been operated. This case sheet - Ex.P-62 when read along with evidence of the Doctor - P.W.2 who was examined and operated for the fracture of left femur neck and for fracture ulna left forearm of deceased Smt.Ratnawwa, it would demonstrate that she was not completely cured and it can be stated that possibility of deceased dying on account of injuries sustained cannot be ruled out. Infact, in the cross examination, though an attempt has been made by learned Advocate for Insurance Company to discredit the credibility of this witness by suggesting that death was not on account of injuries sustained, his evidence has stood the test of cross examination. Cross examination dated 29.03.2008 would fortify this view which reads as under: "After discharge xxxxx death of injured after her discharge. I have treated thousands of patients for such fractures. Majority of the patients cured due to my treatment from such fractures. The deceased developed complications due to the fractures only and died. As per our records the deceased was aged 55 years at the time of admission. We treated the deceased in our hospital as inpatient for 1 ½ months. It is true xxxxx some complications. Majority of the patients cured due to my treatment from such fractures. The deceased developed complications due to the fractures only and died. As per our records the deceased was aged 55 years at the time of admission. We treated the deceased in our hospital as inpatient for 1 ½ months. It is true xxxxx some complications. It is true that the fracture will not directly cause the death but if the patient develops any complications those complications may cause the death." (Emphasis supplied) 16 It is the contention of learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 that if really Smt.Ratnawwa had developed complications as contended either she would have been brought back to the hospital where she had been treated or she would have been treated elsewhere and non examination of any other doctor in this regard would suggest that theory put forward by appellants is too far fetched for being accepted. 17 Said contention requires to be examined with utmost circumspection for the reason that P.W.1 has entered witness box and in his evidence, he has stated that deceased Smt.Ratnawwa had in fact developed bed sores and complications which have not been denied in the cross examination. Admittedly, claimants - her husband and her son are all rustic illiterate villagers without any worldly knowledge. When the Doctor has advised them to take her back home and take follow up treatment and they having found that on account of these complications namely, bed sores and other related ailments that followed, it would be an exercise in futile to take follow up treatment, no fault can be found or such conduct can be viewed with suspicion. As such, contention of Sri Jainer cannot be accepted. In fact, it has also come out in the evidence of P.W.1 that he is carrying out coolie work and was earning coolie of Rs.20/- to Rs.30/- per day. In view of this overwhelming evidence available on record, the : reasoning given by Tribunal that cause of death of Smt.Ratnawwa was not due to injuries sustained in the accident is too remote for being accepted. 18 Accident in question occurred on 04.11.2001 and she was admitted to KHI Hospital, Ghataprabha i.e., on the very same day. On account of multiple injuries sustained, she was operated on 27.11.2001 namely, for fracture of left femur neck and fracture ulna left forearm. 18 Accident in question occurred on 04.11.2001 and she was admitted to KHI Hospital, Ghataprabha i.e., on the very same day. On account of multiple injuries sustained, she was operated on 27.11.2001 namely, for fracture of left femur neck and fracture ulna left forearm. Case sheet - Ex.P-62 would show that there is complete inconsistency in her blood pressure apart from other complication as noted in the case sheet - Ex.P-62. Nowhere the case sheet speaks that condition of deceased Smt.Ratnawwa was doing well which would entitle her for immediate discharge and infact she came to be discharged on 23.12.2001 and within 16 days thereafter, i.e., on 12.01.2002 she expired. This sequential date of events would clearly point out finger that deceased Smt.Ratnawwa had expired on account of injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident that occurred on 04.11.2001. Non reporting of the death either to the Court or to the jurisdictional police would not be a ground to shut the doors of the Court and to deny the litigants the relief particularly when they are illiterate and having no worldly knowledge and as such opportunity to seek relief cannot be denied when benefits of social beneficial legislation are being extended. Hence, I am of the considered view that finding arrived at by Tribunal on additional issue No.1 is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in favour of appellants claimants and against respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. Re: Point No.(ii): 18. In view of point No.(i) being answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of appellants, next question that would arise is as to what compensation claimants would be entitled to. 19. As on the date of death of Smt.Ratnawwa i.e., on 12.01.2002, first claimant was aged about 34 years. He was married having one child as admitted by him in his evidence namely, in his cross examination dated 22.11.2007. As to whether he was residing along with deceased Smt.Ratnawwa and she was contributing any amount to run his family, evidence is vague though not silent and as such, it can be safely concluded that claimant No.1 - son of deceased Smt.Ratnawwa would be entitled only to loss of estate and principles laid down in KANNAMMA vs DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KSRTC ( 1991 ACJ 707 ) squarely applicable to the facts on hand. Even husband of deceased has not entered witness box to demonstrate that he was solely depending on the income of the deceased. Nothing prevented son of the deceased to examine his father and non-examination of his father creates a doubt and it was the specific suggestion of respondent No.3 that husband of deceased was also working. To demonstrate as to what is the age of father -husband of deceased, no records were produced. In the absence thereof, it cannot be construed that husband of deceased did not have any independent income of his own and as such, it is only loss of estate of the deceased to which claimants would be entitled to. 20. Admittedly, as on the date of accident i.e., on 04.11.2001 even according to claimants, deceased Smt.Ratnawwa was earning Rs.4,000/-per month. Considering the income at Rs.100/- per day, it can be safely concluded that deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month or Rs.36,000/-per annum and the savings that she could have made for the appellants would have been 25% of her earnings i.e., Rs.750/- per month or Rs.9,000/- per annum. The deceased even according to claimants, was aged about 55 years and appropriate multiplier as per decision in SARLA VERMA vs DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ((2009)6 SCC 121), would be 11. Therefore, compensation that claimants would be entitled to is Rs.99,000/-. (Rs.9000 x 11). 20A. The appellant has admittedly spent Rs.12,000/-towards hospitalisation and medical expenses which is evidenced from Ex.P-9, Exs.P-11 to 16. As such the appellants would be entitled for the said amount of Rs.12,000/-and accordingly it is hereby awarded. *(inserted vide court order dated 17.01.2013) Re: Point No.(iii):- 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Judgment and award passed by Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & Addl.MACT, Gokak, in MVC No.2385/2001 dated 06.08.2008 is hereby set aside and claim petition filed by appellants is allowed in part. (iii) Claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,11,000/- which carries interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier excluding the period from 12.01.2002 to 24.07.2006. (* substituted vide court order dated 17.01.2013) (iv) Respondent No.3 shall deposit the said award amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (* substituted vide court order dated 17.01.2013) (iv) Respondent No.3 shall deposit the said award amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 17.01.2013 ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO' This Court by order dated 26.11.2012 has disposed of the appeal by allowing the same in part. A contention was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants by bringing to the notice of the Court ground No.9 which is to the effect that compensation towards medical expenses and hospital bills spent by the appellants ought to have been awarded. This Court having perused the records as also the judgment and award of the Tribunal was of the considered view and same deserves to be accepted. However, in the order dated 26.11.2012 disposing of the appeal same has not been included. As such, the learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo for 'Being spoken to', with a request to include the said Rs.12,000/-and award the same in favour of the appellants. It is stated that though this Court ordered the amount of Rs.12,000/- towards medical bills produced by the appellants, said amount has not been added in the judgment. Learned counsel Sri S.C. Jainer appearing for the Insurance Company for the 3rd respondent would submit that he has already obtained certified copy of the order and it has been forwarded by the Company for compliance. His submission is also placed on record. It is noticed, in fact, such a ground had been urged and was accepted. In the notes made by this Court a sum of Rs.12,000/-has been included apart from awarding compensation towards loss of estate. Hence, same requires to be awarded which has been left out in the judgment passed on 26.11.2012. In view of the same, the following paragraph is ordered to be added or included at page 25 after paragraph 20 as paragraph 20A- "The appellant has admittedly spent Rs.12,000/-towards hospitalisation and medical expenses which is evidenced from Ex.P-9, Exs.P-11 to 16. Hence, same requires to be awarded which has been left out in the judgment passed on 26.11.2012. In view of the same, the following paragraph is ordered to be added or included at page 25 after paragraph 20 as paragraph 20A- "The appellant has admittedly spent Rs.12,000/-towards hospitalisation and medical expenses which is evidenced from Ex.P-9, Exs.P-11 to 16. As such the appellants would be entitled for the said amount of Rs.12,000/-and accordingly it is hereby awarded." Paragraph 21 (iii) is ordered to be substituted as under- "Claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,11,000/-which carries interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier excluding the period from 12.01.2002 to 24.07.2006.'' Registry to correct the autograph accordingly. Since the learned counsel has obtained the certified copies of judgment and award which is now ordered to be corrected, learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for 3rd respondent be furnished with page Nos. 1, 24, 25 and 26 of the said judgment and award for free of cost, if applied for.