Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2687
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., – Appellant
Versus
Manjula W/o. Prakash Paradeshi – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22466 OF 2012 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.25177 OF 2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE
:
Compensation for accidental death must consider the nexus between injuries and death; 'loss to estate' compensates for financial contributions, while 'loss of estate' addresses non-pecuniary damages.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation for accidental death - The court examined the nexus between the deceased's injuries and subsequent death, concluding that death was due to cardiac failure unrelated to the accident - Compensation awarded under 'loss to estate' and other heads totaling Rs.4,08,750/- with interest at 6% p.a. (Paras 22, 23)
(B) Legal principles - The distinction between 'loss of estate' and 'loss to estate' was clarified, emphasizing that the former pertains to non-pecuniary damages while the latter relates to the deceased's savings and financial contributions to dependents. (Paras 14, 15)
(C) Issues - The court addressed whether the death was caused by the injuries sustained in the accident and the appropriate heads under which compensation could be claimed. (Paras 7, 13)
(D) Findings of Court - The court found that the injuries sustained did not cause death, which was due to pre-existing heart disease, and thus the claimants were entitled to compensation under 'loss to estate'. (Paras 12, 18) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court ruled that the claimants were entitled to compensation despite the lack of nexus between the injuries and death, as the deceased's death occurred shortly after the accident. (Paras 18, 19) (F) Result - The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed, and the claimants' appeal was allowed in part, modifying the compensation awarded by the tribunal. (Paras 23) (G) Parties involved - Claimants (wife and children of deceased) and Insurance Company.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
MFA No.22466/2012 is filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that there is no nexus between accidental injuries and death of deceased as well as quantum of compensation. Whereas, MFA No.25177/2012 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.04.2012, passed in MVC No.239/2005, by the Court of District and Sessions Judge and Member, MACT, Gadag (for short, ‘Tribunal’).
2. It is the case of claimants that claimants are wife and children of deceased Prakash Paradeshi (for short, ‘deceased’). On 29.05.2005, at 12.00 hours, the deceased was carrying sweet products from the factory of his employer to the godown and by looking to the heavy traffic, he stopped his hand pull cycle near Pai Hotel, Hubli. At that time, one car being driven by its driver came with a high speed and in rash and negligent manner, with an intention to overtake another vehicle and dashed to deceased and caused the accident. As a result, deceased sustained severe injuries i.e., fracture of right clavicle and right radius and tibia. The accident occurred on 29.05.2005, but injured died on 03.06.2005. Therefore, the claimants have filed claim petition seeking compensation.
3. In the present case, the Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows:
| Sl.No. | Heads. | Amount in (Rs.) |
| 1. | Pain and suffering. | 50,000 |
| 2. | Medical bills. | 220 |
| 3. | Loss of consortium. | 15,000 |
| 4. | Love and affection. | 15,000 |
| 5. | Loss of estate. | 15,000 |
| 6. | Funeral and obsequies. | 10,000 |
| Total | 1,05,220 |
4. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,05,220/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that injured, who later died, had suffered only fractures of right clavicle and right radius and tibia, which are not serious injuries and fractures to cause death of deceased. Therefore, death of deceased is not due to accidental injuries, but has caused due to heart attack. Therefore, claimants are entitled to compensation under the pecuniary damages and loss to estate only. The claimants are not entitled to compensation under the head non- pecuniary damages. Hence, prays to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that considering the proximity of dates of accident and death, there is only four days gap. Therefore, claimants are entitled to compensation under the head loss of dependency. Hence, prays for enhancement of compensation.
7. The question that arises before this Court is that whether death of deceased is having any nexus to the accidental injuries suffered by him, is to be considered.
8. Admittedly, in the present case, deceased has sustained fractures of right clavicle and right radius and tibia. These are the only injuries sustained by the deceased. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 29.05.2005 and he died on 03.06.2005. Just because, there is only four days gap between the date of accident and date of death, whether the death of deceased is caused due to accidental injuries is to be considered in the light of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal.
9. Ex.P9 is post mortem report. As per post mortem report, death of deceased is caused due to cardiac failure consequent upon heart disease only, which is clearly indicated in the Histopathology report. Ex.P10 is the letter issued by Dr.B.G.Shalawadi, who has furnished information to the Police Inspector, Hubli North Traffic P.S, Hubli, which reads as follows:
“I am of the opinion that the death of Sri.Prakash Namdev Pardeshi might have been caused due cardio respiratory failure caused by pulmonary embolism consequent upon the injuries sustained due to road traffic accident.”
10. The learned counsel for the claimants has argued by pacing reliance on Ex.P10-letter issued by Dr.B.G.Shalawadi, Department of Forensic Medicine, Kar
