The Tribunal must address the cause of action and re-cast issues when a claimant dies during proceedings, ensuring all objections are considered.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. Poonacha, J.

The above appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 3.2.2012 passed in MVC.No.252/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hassan [Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal']

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present appeal are that claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, which is alleged to have been occurred on 13.6.2001, one Sri. Manjegowda[Hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased claimant'] filed a claim petition in MVC No.252/2010 before the Tribunal arraying the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-13/R.1654 as respondents.

4. The insurer who is arrayed as respondent No.2 entered appearance and filed the counter statement. It is relevant to note that the claim petition was filed on 6.2.2007 by deceased claimant claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Subsequently, in view of the fact that said Sri. Manjegowda died on 4.4.2007 vide order dated 10.7.2008 the wife of the deceased was permitted to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 27.5.2010 wherein, IA.6 for amendment was allowed. The insurer filed an additional counter statement on 25.11.2010 wherein the insurer has specifically taken a contention that the amended claim petition is not maintainable having regard to the fact that the original claimant - Manjegowda having died during the pendency of the claim petition, the cause of action to claim compensation also does not survive. It is also denied that the death is attributable to the alleged injury suffered in the accident and there is no connection between the death and the injury alleged in the accident.

5. The wife of the deceased Manjegowda namely Smt. Jayamma examined herself as PW.1 and examined 2 witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. Exs.P1 to P15 were marked in evidence. The policy of insurance was marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 3.2.2012 allowed the claim petition and directed the owner and insurer to jointly and severally pay the said Smt. Jayamma a sum of Rs. 2,86,000/- together with interest at 6% pa. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the insurer.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer vehemently contended that consequent to the death of the original claimant Sri. Manjegowda and pursuant to the amendment made, the Tribunal has not appreciated the relevant facts or recorded any finding as to whether the death of the deceased was caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is further submitted that even the issues are not re-casted consequent to the death of the original claimant. It is further submitted that there is no nexus between the death of the original claimant and the injuries caused in the alleged accident.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent - wife of original claimant submits that the injuries as are forthcoming from Ex.P4 clearly demonstrates that the original claimant had suffered injury to the spine. That it is also forthcoming from the evidence of the doctors PWs.2 and 3 wherein, in detail the nature of treatment that has been taken by the original claimant has been placed on record and hence it is clear that the death has occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident in question. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the above appeal.

8. The submissions made by both the learned counsel have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal has been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with?

9. It is forthcoming from the records of the Tribunal that consequent to the claim petition having been filed on 6.2.2007, the insurer who was arrayed as respondent No.2 entered appearance before