JUDGMENT : In these two appeals, the Insurance Company is questioning assessment of compensation, whereas the petitioner is seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are, one Umanath Shetty, the deceased, who is the husband of the petitioner, on 30.04.2008 at 8.00 a.m. while walking by the side of the road at NH-17 near Punkedadi in Yermal village, Udupi taluk, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-46-145 came from Mangalore side and dashed against him, due to which he sustained head injuries, he has taken treatment at Hi-tech Hospital, Udupi under hospitalization for three days. Thereafter from 04.06.2008 to 13.06.2008 at Jupiter Hospital Thane, thereafter he was admitted to SDM Ayurveda Hospital from 21.07.2008 to 29.07.2008, 05.09.2008 to 21.09.2008 and 24.09.2008 to 04.10.2008. He was also treated at Adarsh Hospital, Udupi between 04.10.2008 to 18.10.2008 and ultimately on 02.12.2008 the deceased succumbed to death. 3.1. The petitioner claiming that she has spent Rs.2,20,000/-towards treatment, the deceased was an agriculturist earning Rs.9,000/-per month, she has approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation. Claim was opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the earlier claim petition filed by the deceased himself in MVC.No.611/2008 before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Udupi was dismissed for non-prosecution, the petition filed by the petitioner in Mis. Case 4/2010 for recalling the said order of dismissal was rejected and she cannot maintain the present petition apart from other grounds. The Tribunal, after taking the evidence and hearing both the parties, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.4,05,900/-. The Insurance Company is questioning the impugned award whereas the petitioner is seeking enhancement and both are before this Court on various grounds. 4. Heard the arguments of Shri. O.Mahesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Shri Harsha G. learned counsel representing on behalf of Shri Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 76 years, he had an uncontrolled diabetes leading to urinary infection and Parkinson. The deceased was died due to diabetes and its complications, the injury sustained by him in the accident has no connectivity to the cause of death. The deceased was died due to diabetes and its complications, the injury sustained by him in the accident has no connectivity to the cause of death. In the accident, the deceased was suffered lacerated wound and abrasions on his face and head. The deceased as a petitioner has approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation for the injury sustained in MVC.No.611/2008. The said proceeding was not prosecuted by him, for this reason it was dismissed for non-prosecution. Two years after the death of the deceased the petitioner files a Mis. Case No.4/2010 seeking restoration of the said claim petition, it also came to be dismissed. In view of the dismissal of both MVC petition as well as the Mis. Case seeking recall of the dismissal, the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition. There is no evidence on record that the deceased was died on account of injuries sustained in the accident and it is a case of "ACTIO PERSONALIS MORITUS CUM PERSONA meaning a PERSONAL ACTION DIES WITH THE PERSON" 5.1. The learned counsel also referred to the evidence of PW.2, the doctor on whom the petitioner is mainly depending to establish the cause of death. During cross-examination of the doctor it is brought out that he was not aware of the cause of death. The Tribunal has erroneously recorded that the death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained in the accident and also wrongly assessed the dependency while allowing the claim petition. After dismissal of the Mis. Case she kept quiet for long period of 5 years and files the present petition in the year 2013, is not maintainable. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that, the accident was on 30.04.2008, the deceased was died on 02.12.2008. The deceased was aged 76 years at the time of accident. He had suffered the head injuries and seeking compensation for the injuries, he has approached the Tribunal in MVC.No.611/2008. On 06.01.2008 itself during the lifetime of the deceased, the claim petition came to be dismissed. The petitioner was not aware of the dismissal of the said petition and in the year 2010 when she made an enquiry about the fate of the said proceeding she came to know about the dismissal of the claim petition. Then she files the Mis. Case for restoration of the claim petition which came to be dismissed. The petitioner was not aware of the dismissal of the said petition and in the year 2010 when she made an enquiry about the fate of the said proceeding she came to know about the dismissal of the claim petition. Then she files the Mis. Case for restoration of the claim petition which came to be dismissed. The order of dismissal of the Mis. Case was also not aware of the petitioner, she came to know about the same in the year 2013, she approached the Tribunal with the present petition. 6.1. It is further contended that, there is no Bar for filing second petition as the cause of action is different to that of the claim petition filed by the deceased. There is no limitation before the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the M.V.Act') for claiming the compensation. To buttress his argument, he has relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in V.Anitha Gangadhara and Others v. S. Srirama Reddy and another, ILR 2015 KAR 3495. 6.2. It is also contended that the deceased was an agriculturist earning more than Rs.9,000/-per month, the petitioner being dependant is entitled to compensation for the loss of dependency as well as under conventional heads apart from medical and incidental expenses. The Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence on record and came to the right conclusion in allowing the claim petition. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.4,000/-per month only which is on the lower side and he sought for enhancement. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of both parties and perused the records. 8. The material on record such as prosecution papers and medical records goes to show that the deceased was met with an accident on 30.04.2008 at 8.00 a.m. being a pedestrian hit by the lorry in question, in the accident he has sustained the injuries over right orbital region, both sides of face and head. He was admitted to the various hospitals for treatment referred supra, ultimately he died on 02.12.2008. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased is not in dispute. The petitioner contends that the death of the deceased was direct nexus with the injuries sustained by her husband in the accident and the Insurance Company pleads otherwise that there is no nexus. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased is not in dispute. The petitioner contends that the death of the deceased was direct nexus with the injuries sustained by her husband in the accident and the Insurance Company pleads otherwise that there is no nexus. In view of the same, there are three points that arise for consideration: (i) Whether the deceased was succumbed to the death on account of direct nexus of the injuries sustained in the accident? (ii) What is the effect of dismissal of MVC.No.611/2008 and Mis. Case No.4/2010 on the present claim petition? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as a dependant? Re: Point No.(i): 9. As referred supra, the injuries sustained by the deceased and he was treated at various hospitals. The medical records also goes to show that the deceased was suffering from uncontrolled diabetes and he was also a patient of Parkinson, because of the diabetes, he has suffered urinary infection. Ex.P8 is the certificate issued by PW.2 to explain that the deceased was died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Apart from this, PW.2 has also justified in the witness box and though he has asserted that the deceased was died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the cross-examination on behalf of Insurance Company has brought out that PW.2 is unable to assert or say the reason for death of the deceased. The petitioner is fully dependent on PW.2. Though PW.2 asserts that cause of death having nexus to the accident, he failed to withstood the cross-examination and conceded that he is not aware the cause of death of the deceased. 10. Having regard to the deceased was aged 76 years, suffering from diabetes, Parkinson, leading to urinary infection, the gap between the accident and the death was more than 7 months. The deceased was under hospitalization for about 71 days. Soon before the death when the deceased was admitted to Adarsh Hospital, Udupi on 04.10.2008, he was treated for the diabetes, for Parkinson and the urinary infection. No evidence is placed on record to show that he has been treated for the head injury. The medical evidence did not point out that the diabetes and the Parkinson was aggravated on account of the head injuries. 11. No evidence is placed on record to show that he has been treated for the head injury. The medical evidence did not point out that the diabetes and the Parkinson was aggravated on account of the head injuries. 11. When the witness of the petitioner herself speaks, he is not aware of cause of death of the deceased, the finding of the Tribunal that there is no cross-examination of the petitioner and her witness regarding cause of death is erroneous. The Tribunal did not consider the admission of PW.2 in the cross-examination that he is not aware of cause of death of the deceased. No finding was recorded about such admission of PW.2. 12. PW.2 is the witness of the petitioner and his evidence has to be considered in toto and the outcome of the evidence may cause damage to the petitioner in proving her case. Though the petitioner has satisfied in Ex.P8 that there is an nexus between the accident and the cause of death in the witness box he has diluted it. When PW.2 is not aware of cause of death of deceased, there is no other evidence on record to show nexus between accident and death of the deceased. Then the petitioner cannot be entitle to claim compensation as a dependant under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered. Re: Point No.(ii): 13. During his lifetime, the deceased himself as an injured approached the Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V.Act in MVC.No.611/2008 before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi. During his lifetime itself, the said claim petition came to be dismissed on 09.02.2010 as indicated in Ex.R.1. 14. The deceased was died on 02.12.2008. Order sheet in MVC No.611/2008 shows from 02.12.2008 till 09.02.2008 the matter was adjourned in the said proceeding and it has reached the stage of evidence of the petitioner. Since the petitioner remained absent, the claim petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the wife files an application seeking restoration of order of dismissal which came to be dismissed. The argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the present claim petition is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the previous two proceedings is concerned, the previous proceeding was pertains to the claim made by the deceased as an injured. The argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the present claim petition is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the previous two proceedings is concerned, the previous proceeding was pertains to the claim made by the deceased as an injured. The present claim petition is filed seeking loss of dependency and the incidental expenses including medical expenses. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in V.Anitha Gangadhara's case (supra), has held that the legal heirs of the deceased can maintain a separate claim petition when the cause of action is different. The similar situation is here, there is no material on record that there is any Bar or limitation for the petitioner to claim reimbursement of the medical expenses even accepting that the cause of death is not proved by her. Hence, the dismissal of MVC.No.611/2008 and Mis. Case 4/2010 has no impact on the present petition. Accordingly, Point No.(ii) is answered. Re: Point No.(iii): 16. In view of the finding on point No.(i), the petitioner is not able to prove the nexus between the injury and death of the deceased. Being wife, she has spent huge money to revive her husband. Before the Tribunal the medical bills are produced to the extent of Rs.2,00,900/-and also the Tribunal assessed an amount of Rs.25,000/-towards incidental expenses. Having regard to the hospitalization, traveling to the various hospitals including to Thane, the incidental expenses assessed at Rs.25,000/-has to be kept intact. 17. Insofar as the assessment of loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and also funeral expenses, the petitioner has not made out her case. Out of the compensation of Rs.4,05,900/-, the petitioner is entitled to only Rs.2,25,900/-which is rounded of to Rs.2,26,000/-. Accordingly, point No.(iii) is answered. 18. As regarding rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. In the year 2008, no banks will offer such rate of interest. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal did not record any special reason for awarding higher rate of interest. Unless the Tribunal recorded special reasons for awarding higher rate of interest, it shall be at 6% p.a. In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court in Ms.Joyeeta Bose and Ors. -vs-Venkateshan.V. and Ors. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal did not record any special reason for awarding higher rate of interest. Unless the Tribunal recorded special reasons for awarding higher rate of interest, it shall be at 6% p.a. In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court in Ms.Joyeeta Bose and Ors. -vs-Venkateshan.V. and Ors. in M.F.A.No.5896/2018 c/w M.F.A.Nos.4444/2018 and 4659/2018 (MV) DD 24.08.2020 with reference to Section 149(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 253 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code, at Para 52 held as under: "52.Thus, under Section 34 of CPC being squarely applicable to the interest awarded by the tribunal and Section 34 empowering the tribunal to award pendente lite interest and discretion being vested with the Court/Tribunal to award interest from the date of suit or petition is to the maximum extent of 6% p.a. or in other words, not exceeding 6% p.a., the contention raised by the learned Advocates appearing for the Insurance Company deserves to be accepted and accordingly, it is accepted. . . . . . . . . . . ." In the light of above, the petitioner is entitled for interest at 6% p.a. 19. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company merits consideration and the appeal filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits, in the result, the following: ORDER (i) MFA.No.8450/2017 is allowed in part; (ii) MFA.No.6886/2017 is dismissed; (iii) The impugned judgment and award is modified; (iv) The petitioner would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,26,000/-with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit; (v) The statutory deposit already made by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with records forthwith; (vi) The Insurance Company shall deposit balance amount, if any, with interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. If already deposited, excess money deposited shall be returned to Insurance Company.