Insurer as well as the claimant are before this Court challenging the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.191/2010.

2. Briefly stated the facts are:-

the deceased Nagaraj while proceeding on Motor Cycle bearing NO.KA16L2625, on 05.05.2008 met with the road traffic accident owing to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA16/Q3030 and sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was immediately shifted to Chitradurga Government Hospital and thereafter he took medical treatment in various hospitals, finally succumbed to the fatal injuries. Based on these facts, the claimant – wife of the deceased Nagaraj filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The insurer contested the matter. After evaluating the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,50,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, the insurer is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and order being excessive whereas the claimant is also before this Court seeking for enhancement of compensation as the compensation awarded being inadequate.

3. Learned counsel, Smt. Renuka appearing for the insurer, is assailing the impugned order mainly on three grounds:

(1) there was no nexus between the accidental injuries sustained by the deceased and the cause of his death.

(2) the Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs.2,56,600/- towards medical bills is erroneous and unjust inasmuch as awarding double compensation to the extent of Rs.1,20,000/- as the same has been reimbursed to the claimants/injured (deceased) being the claim towards Mediclaim Insurance Policy.

(3) It was contended that the claimant, dependent of the deceased is getting family pension, as such, she is not entitled to the compensation in addition to the family pension. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the ‘Act’ for short) cannot be construed as a bonanza or bounty to get the accidental claim much above the family pension.

4. Elaborating on these points, learned counsel would contend that the deceased was a known hypertensive and suffering from parkinson decease. The injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident was fracture of leg and the cause of death is cardiorespiratory failure due to acute renal failure (kidney), head injury and cardiojenic short all relatable to the preexisting decease and not the fracture. The learned counsel would place reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Manish Gupta & Another, (2013 (1) KLJ 624) in support of her contention that the amount received by the claimant/deceased under the Mediclaim Policy is required to be deducted from the total compensation awardable to the claimants under the head medical expenses

5. Per contra, Sri. R. Shashidhara appearing for the claimant would contend that the accidental injuries suffered by the deceased were fatal. The medical reports on record clearly indicates that the deceased Nagaraj, not only sustained fracture injury but also sustained head injury. It is not uncommon that a patient suffering from hypertension and related diseases would get the problem aggravated due to the impact of the accidental injuries on the biological system as a whole more particularly, in view of the head injuries sustained by the deceased. The learned counsel submits that there was absolute nexus between the accidental injuries and the cause of death. The deceased was under consistent medical treatment from the date of the accident till his last breath. This would disclose that the root cause of death was the accidental injuries. In support of this contention, learned counsel would place reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh vs. Hanumanthu in MFA 11237/2012 (D.D.11.12.2014)

Seco