The main legal point established in the judgment is that there must be a clear nexus between the accidental injuries and the subsequent death in order to award compensation. Additionally, the compensation should be limited to the maximum amount specified in the policy, as per the contractual obligation of the insurance company.

JUDGMENT

V. Srishananda, J. - This appeal is preferred by the Insurance company questioning the validity of the judgment and award passed by the II Additional MACT, Belagavi, dated 19.02.2009, in MVC No.990/2004.

2. Germane of the facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under :

It is contended in the claim petition that on 07.04.2004 at about 10.45 p.m. one Bhau Balu Patil was riding a motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/S-7343 from Desur towards Alathige. When he reached near Zad Shahapur village he dashed to the road side tree and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi and took treatment as inpatient for 15 days and took follow up treatment. It is also his case that he has also spent large amount of money for his treatment and as a painter he was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month.

3. It is his case that after taking treatment, he was not in a position to attend to his work on regular basis and there was continued treatment.

4. Ultimately, he was discharged from the hospital and he continued the treatment as an out patient. For the injuries sustained by him, he lodged a claim petition. When the claim petition was pending adjudication before the tribunal, the injured Bhau Balu Patil died on 23.06.2006. Later on, his legal representatives were brought on record before the tribunal.

5. On issuance of notice, the second respondent Insurance company appeared and filed its written statement denying the claim petition averments. After the death of the original claimant, the legal representatives were brought on record. But, subsequent to that there was no further written statement on record.

6. In view of the death of the sole claimant(injured) the tribunal re-casted the issue as under :

1. Whether the present petitioners prove that the death of the original petitioner was due to the accidental injuries?

7. In order to prove the issue, Sewanta mother of Bhau Balu Patil, was examined as PW1 and Dr.Annasaheb B. Patil who treated the injured got examined as PW2 and eye witness to accident Mr.Anil G.Patil got examined as as PW3. The legal heirs of the original claimant also relied on 54 documents, which are marked before the tribunal as Ex.P1 to P54.

8. On behalf of respondents there was no oral evidence, but the copy of the policy is marked at Ex.R1.

9. After hearing the counsels for the parties and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the tribunal allowed the claim petition and granted a sum of Rs.3,08,589/- with interest 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization as total compensation as under :

10. It is that judgment, which is under challenge before this court.

11. The learned counsel Sri. M.K. Soudagar vehemently contended that the tribunal grossly erred in answering recasted issue in favour of the legal heirs of the claimants as there was no material to establish the fact that the death of Bhau Balu Patil was on account of the injury sustained by him in the accident dated 07.04.2004.

12. It is his specific case that for the injury that was sustained by him he took treatment in the hospital and got discharged and he was hale and healthy. Thereafter, on account of some other health complications he died. Therefore, the tribunal ought to have answered recasted issue in favour of insurance company and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

13. Alternatively, he also submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A. Therefore, the adjudged compensation should not have been more than Rs.1,00,000/- having regard to the policy terms and conditions.

14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the r