Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1321 (KAR)

Savitha Bai v. Umapathi B. K.

2022-10-10

B.VEERAPPA, K.S.HEMALEKHA

body2022
JUDGMENT K.S.HEMALEKHA,J. - The present appeal is preferred by the claimants assailing the judgment and award dtd. 15/12/2011, in MVC. No.281/2010 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for the sake of convenience) whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed the claim petition on account of death of one Sri. Annaiah @ Annaiah Naik succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 29/1/2019, when the deceased was traveling as a coolie labors in the tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA-18-T-7577-7578, the driver of the tractor-trailer having driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to the speed, lost control over the said vehicle and as a result, the trailer turned turtle upside down on the injuries. Due to the impact of the accident, deceased Annaiah sustained injuries and one Bhaskar succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the injured Annaiah was taken to General hospital, Tarikere and after receiving first aid treatment, was shifted to Nanjappa Hospital, Shimogga, wherein he was inpatient for a period of six days and was referred to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru on 5/2/2009 and after necessary treatment, he was admitted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. According to the claimants, the deceased Annaiah was inpatient therein and thereafter, he underwent surgery and was discharged. After follow up treatment, he was readmitted for further treatment in the very same hospital at Manipal from 28/5/2009 to 28/6/2009 as inpatient. According to the claimants, though best treatment was given to Annaiah, he succumbed to the injuries on 15/8/2009 at around 8.00 a.m. in his residence. The deceased was aged about 32 years and was doing coolie work and earning Rs.6,000.00 per month and the claimants are wife, children and parents of the deceased were depending upon the income of the deceased and lost the sole earning member of the family and sought for compensation. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2-insurance company appeared and filed their separate written statement. 4. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2-insurance company appeared and filed their separate written statement. 4. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle denied the entire averments made in the claim petition and contended that the tractor-trailer was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company and was having valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident and thereby, respondent No.2 is liable to answer the claim of the claimants indemnifying respondent No.1. 5. Respondent No.2-insurance company has filed written statement denying the relationship of the claimants with the deceased, age, avocation and income of the deceased Annaiah @ Annaiah Nayak. The insurance company stated that the owner of the tractor-trailer has entrusted the vehicle to a person who did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle as on the date of the accident and the vehicle was used for non-agricultural purpose and thereby, respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the insurance company, deceased was traveling in a tractor-trailer as gratuitous passenger and even the death of said Annaiah was not due to the accidental injuries and as such, sought to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the petitioner proves that deceased Annaiah @ Annaiah Naik died in a road traffic accident on 29/1/2009 at about 9.00 a.m. near Gurupura road, Kaladammana Channel Bridge, Gurupura, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, Chickmagalur Dist, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor-Trailer bearing No.KA.18.T.7577-78? 2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?" 7. In order to substantiate the contention of the claimants, claimant No.1-wife of the deceased examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.16. On the other hand, respondent No.2 examined its Manager as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R.1 to R.5 and respondent No.1 examined himself as RW.2 and got marked documents at Exs.R.6 to R.11. 8. The Tribunal held that occurrence of the accident involving the tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA-18-T-7577-7578 and the occurrence of the accident was not in dispute. On the other hand, respondent No.2 examined its Manager as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R.1 to R.5 and respondent No.1 examined himself as RW.2 and got marked documents at Exs.R.6 to R.11. 8. The Tribunal held that occurrence of the accident involving the tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA-18-T-7577-7578 and the occurrence of the accident was not in dispute. However, while answering issue No.1 regarding the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer held that though deceased Annaiah has sustained grievous injuries in the accident, the said injuries cannot be a reason for the cause of death of Annaiah and there was no direct consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident and has dismissed the claim petition of the claimants. 9. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 11. Sri. M.V. Parameswarappa, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants would contend that the Tribunal though accepted that the accident occurred on 29/1/2009, held that the death of the deceased Annaiah @ Annaiah Naik could not be attributed to the accident that occurred on 29/1/2009. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the reason assigned by the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation is not justifiable as the only ground taken by the Tribunal is that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to show that the deceased Annaiah had taken any treatment nor any documents have been produced that there was injuries suffered by the deceased on account of accident that occurred on 29/1/2009 and also that no doctors have been examined to certify the cause of the death of the deceased Annaiah. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has failed to consider the documents produced by the claimants to show that the deceased was hospitalized and the material documents produced as per Exs.P.10 to 12, P.14 and P.15 were not considered by the Tribunal in a proper perspective. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has failed to consider the documents produced by the claimants to show that the deceased was hospitalized and the material documents produced as per Exs.P.10 to 12, P.14 and P.15 were not considered by the Tribunal in a proper perspective. According to the learned counsel, an opportunity may be accorded to the claimants to lead further evidence by producing the medical documents and also by leading the evidence of doctors to show that there is nexus between the death and injuries suffered in the accident that occurred on 29/1/2009 and on these grounds, sought to allow the appeal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 12. Per contra, A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that there are no justifiable grounds made out by the claimants to reconsider the claim petition by the Tribunal as the Tribunal has rightly held that the death of the deceased Annaiah was a natural death and not due to the injuries sustained by the deceased in a road traffic accident that occurred on 29/1/2009 as the deceased died on 15/8/2009 i.e., after lapse of nearly eight months. According to learned counsel for the insurance company, the documents produced by the claimants would nowhere establish that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the accident and accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is: "Whether the claimants have made out a case to interfere with the judgment and award of the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case?" 14. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record including the original records carefully. 15. As contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the occurrence of the accident on 29/1/2009 is not disputed by either of the parties nor the Tribunal has held that there is no occurrence of the accident on 29/1/2009. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record including the original records carefully. 15. As contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the occurrence of the accident on 29/1/2009 is not disputed by either of the parties nor the Tribunal has held that there is no occurrence of the accident on 29/1/2009. The Tribunal framed issue No.1 and same was burden upon the claimants to prove that the deceased Annaiah died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 29/1/2009 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractortrailer bearing registration No.KA-18-T-7577-7578, but while answering issue No.1, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the deceased are grievous in nature but, comes to the conclusion that merely on the basis of the injuries sustained, the Court cannot infer that the cause of death of said Annaiah was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident that occurred on 29/1/2009. The Tribunal goes on the grounds that it cannot assume and presume that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The main reason for the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal is that the claimants have not produced any medical certificate nor any evidence of the doctor, who has treated the deceased Annaiah to evidence that the deceased Annaiah died due to the consequence of the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. This being so, the reason assigned by the Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition is not justifiable. When an issue is framed by the Tribunal, the Court has to decide regarding the said aspect. Having failed to do so, the Tribunal has failed in its duty. 16. A perusal of the material on record i.e., Exs.P.1, P.2 and P.3 clearly establish that against the driver of the tractor-trailer, the jurisdictional police have registered a case for the rash and negligent driving under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. This having been so, the Tribunal ought to have at least referred about the rash and negligent driving of the driver on the basis of the documents. The Tribunal having failed to do so holding that the claimants have not produced any materials or not chosen to examine the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, goes to the extent of dismissing the claim petition in its entirety. 17. The Tribunal having failed to do so holding that the claimants have not produced any materials or not chosen to examine the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, goes to the extent of dismissing the claim petition in its entirety. 17. The Tribunal having admitted about the occurrence of the accident ought to have awarded compensation to the claimants for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident and ought to have seen the nexus of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident occurred on 29/1/2009 and the death of the deceased Annaiah and said issue ought to have been framed regarding this aspect. The Tribunal has gone on a wrong assumption in a very cryptic manner and has come to conclusion that the claim petition has to be dismissed. It is also relevant to note that the claimants have produced the Ex.P.11-discharge summary, Ex.P.12-medical prescriptions, Ex.P.14-outpatient card and Ex.P.15-10 X-rays in number, which is not been disputed by insurance company. This having been so, the Tribunal ought to have referred that the medical bills produced by claimants. The Tribunal though holds deceased Annaiah has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident, but goes to the extent of holding that the cause of death was not a direct consequence of injuries sustained in the accident, without considering the discharge summary at Ex.P.11, wherein the deceased Annaiah sustained D-12 L1 fracture dislocation with paraplegia in the accident and PW.1 has categorically stated in her evidence that the deceased Annaiah was given best treatment however, he succumbed to the injuries on 15/8/2009. The Tribunal ought to have considered that the Motor Accident Claims is a beneficial legislation to award just and fair compensation to the victim and the legal representatives of the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident. 18. Having held that there is an occurrence of the accident on 29/1/2009 and the injuries sustained by the deceased Annaiah and the material and evidence ought to be considered in a proper perspective. Having failed to do so, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh, in accordance with law, affording an opportunity to either of the parties to lead additional documents and additional evidence. 19. Having failed to do so, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh, in accordance with law, affording an opportunity to either of the parties to lead additional documents and additional evidence. 19. In light of this, we are of the considered view that the appeal succeeds and the matter is relegated to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, we answer the point framed by us in the affirmative holding that the claimants have made out a case for interfering with the judgment and award of the Tribunal and the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Tribunal. 20. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the injured/claimant is allowed and remanded for fresh consideration and the impugned judgment and award dtd. 15/12/2011 in MVC.No.281/2010 on the file of the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is relegated back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (ii) Parties are directed to be present before the Tribunal on 15/11/2022 without expecting any notice. (iii) Parties are at liberty to produce additional evidence and adduce additional documents as required in accordance with law. (iv) The Trial Court Records shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.