JUDGMENT : LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.663/2010 dated 23.08.2023 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, whereby the Tribunal had awarded the compensation of an amount of Rs.12,78,800/-, the claimants as well as the Insurance Company are before this Court. The claimants’ appeal is MFA.No.8555/2024 and the Insurance Company’s appeal is MFA.No.7582/2023. 2. It is the case of the claimants that on 25.02.2010, the deceased engaged offending vehicle for hire to shift tamarind bags, at about 7.00 am., the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without following traffic rules and capsized the said vehicle on the left side on the NH-206 road and caused the accident. Due to said accident, the deceased sustained head injuries and injuries all over the body. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Government Hospital at Tiptur for treatment, the doctor had given first aid treatment to the injured. On the advice of the duty doctor, the injured was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital at Bengaluru for further treatment and afterwards, the injured was shifted to Manipal Hospital and admitted as inpatient. The doctors gave treatment to the injured and then discharged him with an advice to take regular treatment. The injured was shifted to Balaji Nursing Home at Tiptur and he was taking regular treatment as inpatient and he died while taking the treatment on 02.03.2010 at about 5.30 am. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court had remanded the matter giving liberty to the claimants to adduce the evidence with regard to the nexus between the accident and the death. After the remand, the present order is passed. On behalf of the claimants Ex.P4 is marked i.e., the true copy of the PM report. Then Ex.P7 are the prescriptions and all the medical records pertaining to the Manipal Hospital. The Manipal Hospital records reveals the injuries, the fractures, the neurological complaints, the diagnosis, the discharge summary and it also mentions that the family wants to get the patient discharged from the hospital and they want to shift the deceased to another hospital. When it comes to the evidence, the doctor, who was examined as CW1, who has done the post mortem had stated that the third injury shown in Ex.P4 was caused due to the bronchitis and broncho pneumonia disease. When it comes to the evidence, the doctor, who was examined as CW1, who has done the post mortem had stated that the third injury shown in Ex.P4 was caused due to the bronchitis and broncho pneumonia disease. It is stated that as per Ex.P4, the third injury is multiple abrasion over the shoulder 3X4 centimeters. The Tribunal had observed that Ex.P4-P.M. report coupled with the oral evidence of CW1 shows that the disease bronchitis and broncho pneumonia caused due to the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. If the accident had not caused, the deceased would not have suffered from the said disease. Moreover, Ex.P4-P.M. report shows that the deceased sustained injuries on the vital parts of the body in the accident. This fact clearly discloses that the main reason for the death of the deceased is accident, otherwise, normally a 35 years old youth would not have suffered from such a disease. The oral evidence of CW1 and other documentary evidence produced by the claimants shows that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation as per the table given below: 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the injuries sustained by the deceased, the discharge summary, the MLC, nothing has been placed on record. It is submitted that there is no nexus between the death and the accidental injuries and the claimants have failed to prove the nexus and without any basis, the Tribunal had held that because of the accidental injuries the deceased had died. Learned counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.19 with regard to the cause of accident and submits that the accidental injuries are not the cause for the death and the Tribunal had failed to consider the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that after the remand the claimants have adduced evidence and Ex.P7, the entire medical record pertaining to Manipal Hospital discloses all the injuries that were sustained by the deceased. Then the evidence of CW1 discloses that the injuries that are sustained, particularly in Ex.P4 injury No.3 is a reason for the bronchitis and broncho pneumonia disease and nothing contra was elicited from the said witness by the Insurance Company. Then the evidence of CW1 discloses that the injuries that are sustained, particularly in Ex.P4 injury No.3 is a reason for the bronchitis and broncho pneumonia disease and nothing contra was elicited from the said witness by the Insurance Company. It is submitted that it is not open to the Insurance Company to submit before this Court that there is no nexus when the evidence of the doctor is very clear and the Tribunal had rightly considered the same. Coming to the quantum, learned counsel submits that under the conventional heads, the amount that is awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. The claimants are five in number and after the remand and during the pendency of the claim petition, the father of the deceased died. In the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.97,104/- towards medical expenses whereas in the present order it does not find place and the same may be considered. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The first aspect is with regard to the nexus between the injuries and the death. Admittedly, Ex.P7 clearly discloses all the injuries that are sustained by the deceased and the treatment that is given by the doctors, where the deceased was taken to a local hospital initially, from there to NIMHANS and then to the Manipal Hospital. Later, again he was admitted to a local hospital. The Manipal Hospital records are clear and the injury that is stated in Ex.P4 according to the CW1, the reason for the bronchitis and broncho pneumonia disease finds place in Ex.P7 as well. In these circumstances, it is not open to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to say that there is no nexus. The evidence of the doctor inspires confidence in the mind of this Court and there is nothing to discard the evidence of the doctor. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 6. Coming to the aspect of the compensation, the father of the deceased died after the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. As far as granting the loss of consortium is concerned, this Court is inclined to consider his case also. 6. Coming to the aspect of the compensation, the father of the deceased died after the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. As far as granting the loss of consortium is concerned, this Court is inclined to consider his case also. Hence, as far as loss of dependency is concerned, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.11,08,800/- and this Court is not interfering with the same. Coming to the loss of consortium , this Court is granting an amount of (5X44000)= Rs.2,20,000/- . Towards funeral expenses this Court is granting an amount of Rs.36,000/- . Coming to the medical expenses, as in the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.97,104/- towards medical expenses and this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 7. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another , (2014) 11 SCC 178 , the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses 8. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: 9. Altogether, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of an amount of Rs.14,71,904/- 10. Accordingly, MFA.No.7582/2023 filed by the Insurance company is dismissed 11. Accordingly, MFA.No.8555/2024 filed by the claimants is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.12,78,800/- to Rs.14,71,904/- and the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation. i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. iii) The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iv) Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the award. v) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vi) On 12.09.2025, the delay of 388 days is condoned on the condition that the claimants will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. vii) No costs. vi) On 12.09.2025, the delay of 388 days is condoned on the condition that the claimants will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. vii) No costs. viii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.