Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 1230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P. Sandesh, J.
Muniyamma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
M.F.A. No. 3439/2013 (MV)
Decided On : 17-10-2022
Sree Vidya, Advocate for T.N. Viswanath, Advocate, for the Appellant; H.N. Keshava Prashanth, Advocate, for the Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nexus between the injuries and cause of death, and the reversal of findings based on medical records and the nature of injuries.
Headnote:
Tribunal Error - Dismissal of Claim Petition - M.V.C. No. 9009/2009 - The court considered the nexus between the injuries and cause of death, the quantum of compensation, and the medical records to reverse the findings of the Tribunal and granted compensation of Rs. 6,13,192/- with interest at 6% per annum.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased met with an accident resulting in degloving injury and subsequent amputation. The claimants, wife, and children, filed a claim petition which was dismissed by the Tribunal due to the lack of nexus between the injuries and cause of death.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition and reversed the findings by considering the medical records and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased.
Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition due to the lack of nexus between the injuries and cause of death? (ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires interference?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the medical records, nature of injuries, and the evidence of the Doctor to reverse the findings of the Tribunal and granted compensation of Rs. 6,13,192/- with interest at 6% per annum.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal were set aside, and compensation of Rs. 6,13,192/- with interest at 6% per annum was granted.
JUDGMENT
H.P. Sandesh, J. - Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award of dismissal of the claim petition in M.V.C. No. 9009/2009 dated 24.11.2012 passed by the Principal MACT., & Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-1) ('the Tribunal' for short).
3. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that the deceased met with an accident on 28.11.2009 at about 1:15 p.m, as a result, he had sustained degloving injury which has resulted in amputation. At the first instance, the petition was filed by the injured himself and later on he succumbed to the injuries on 23.07.2010. Hence, the claimants, who are the wife and children, came on record as legal representatives of the deceased.
5. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim examined the daughter, who is the third petitioner as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P11. On the other hand, the respondents have examined one witness as RW.1 and not led any evidence.
6. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence dismissed the claim petition and came to the conclusion that there is no nexus between the injuries and cause of death. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the appellants.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the Tribunal has not considered the matter in a proper prospective. The fact is that he was met with an accident on 28.11.2009, is not in dispute and also he was an inpatient for a period of 8 days at the first instance. Again he was admitted to the hospital on 10.12.2009 and discharged on 21.12.2009. By that time his leg was amputated. After the amputation, he was bedridden and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries on 23.07.2010.
8. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in order to substantiate their claim, they have examined one witness as P.W.2. P.W.2 deposes before the Court that he had sustained degloving injury of the left ankle and foot reason till base 6 toes exposing underneath muscles and tendons, Trimalleolar fracture of the left ankle and fracture of 4th metatarsal left foot and the nature of injuries are grievous in nature and amputation was done on 16.12.2009. He was on regular treatment and discharged on 21.12.2009. The document-Ex.P11, inpatient record is also marked. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he withstood the cross-examination of Insurance Company and the Tribunal not considered the same in a proper perspective. He categorically deposes that the possibility of gangrene at later stage cannot be ruled out. In spite of the Doctor has been examined, the Tribunal has not considered the matter in a proper perspective.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in support of their claim relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in MFA No. 1494/2017 (Mr. N. Murali and another v. The Managing Director, KSRTC.,) dated 29.06.2022, wherein, this Court held that when he took treatment for a longer period even not subjecting for post-mortem, the Court can consider the material on record.
10. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in MFA No. 10130/2011 (Sri M. Basavarajappa and others v. Sri Krishnamurthy and others) dated 25.07.2022, wherein, with regard to the claim petition by succession.
11. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Madras reported in LAWS (MAD)-2009-7-8, in the case of Abdul Rahim v. Sundaresan, wherein the Madras High Court discussed in paragraph No. 2 that in a case of injured examined earlier and subsequently died, considering the medical records for having taken treatment, entertained the cla
