IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a claimant must establish a direct nexus between the accident and the death to be entitled to compensation, and previous claim dismissals do not bar new claims based on different causes of action.

JUDGMENT :

In these two appeals, the Insurance Company is questioning assessment of compensation, whereas the petitioner is seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are, one Umanath Shetty, the deceased, who is the husband of the petitioner, on 30.04.2008 at 8.00 a.m. while walking by the side of the road at NH-17 near Punkedadi in Yermal village, Udupi taluk, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-46-145 came from Mangalore side and dashed against him, due to which he sustained head injuries, he has taken treatment at Hi-tech Hospital, Udupi under hospitalization for three days. Thereafter from 04.06.2008 to 13.06.2008 at Jupiter Hospital Thane, thereafter he was admitted to SDM Ayurveda Hospital from 21.07.2008 to 29.07.2008, 05.09.2008 to 21.09.2008 and 24.09.2008 to 04.10.2008. He was also treated at Adarsh Hospital, Udupi between 04.10.2008 to 18.10.2008 and ultimately on 02.12.2008 the deceased succumbed to death.

3.1. The petitioner claiming that she has spent Rs.2,20,000/-towards treatment, the deceased was an agriculturist earning Rs.9,000/-per month, she has approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation. Claim was opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the earlier claim petition filed by the deceased himself in MVC.No.611/2008 before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Udupi was dismissed for non-prosecution, the petition filed by the petitioner in Mis. Case 4/2010 for recalling the said order of dismissal was rejected and she cannot maintain the present petition apart from other grounds. The Tribunal, after taking the evidence and hearing both the parties, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.4,05,900/-. The Insurance Company is questioning the impugned award whereas the petitioner is seeking enhancement and both are before this Court on various grounds.

4. Heard the arguments of Shri. O.Mahesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Shri Harsha G. learned counsel representing on behalf of Shri Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 76 years, he had an uncontrolled diabetes leading to urinary infection and Parkinson. The deceased was died due to diabetes and its complications, the injury sustained by him in the accident has no connectivity to the cause of death. In the accident, the deceased was suffered lacerated wound and abrasions on his face and head. The deceased as a petitioner has approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation for the injury sustained in MVC.No.611/2008. The said proceeding was not prosecuted by him, for this reason it was dismissed for non-prosecution. Two years after the death of the deceased the petitioner files a Mis. Case No.4/2010 seeking restoration of the said claim petition, it also came to be dismissed. In view of the dismissal of both MVC petition as well as the Mis. Case seeking recall of the dismissal, the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition. There is no evidence on record that the deceased was died on account of injuries sustained in the accident and it is a case of "ACTIO PERSONALIS MORITUS CUM PERSONA meaning a PERSONAL ACTION DIES WITH THE PERSON"

5.1. The learned counsel also referred to the evidence of PW.2, the doctor on whom the petitioner is mainly depending to establish the cause of death. During cross-examination of the doctor it is brought out that he was not aware of the cause of death. The Tribunal has erroneously recorded that the death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained in the accident and also wrongly assessed the dependency while allowing the claim petition. After dismissal of the Mis. Case she kept quiet for long period of 5 years and files the present petition in the year 2013, is not maintainable.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petiti