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. 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 construe