Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 22338
- 1 -
MFA No. 3177 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3177 OF 2012 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.5, 2ND FLOORS,
WHITE HOUSE,
ST MARKS ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
RPE BY ITS MANAGER.
NOW REP BY ITS
M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
S-5, MONARCH CHAMBER,
3RD FLOOR, INFANTRY ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
GIRIYAMMA,
W/O LATE H M SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT C/O RAMADASEGOWDA,
NO 57/1, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
KEMPREGOWDA NAGARA,
NANJAPPA BLOCK, BANGALORE - 19.
Digitally
signed by V
MANJUSHA
BAI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
MFA No. 3177 of 2012
2.
LOKESH H.S.,
S/O LATE H M SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED 29 YEARS ,
R/AT C/O RAMADASEGOWDA,
NO 57/1, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
KEMPREGOWDA NAGARA,
NANJAPPA BLOCK, BANGALORE - 19.
3.
BALARAM H.S.,
S/O LATE H M SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT C/O RAMADASEGOWDA,
NO 57/1, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
KEMPREGOWDA NAGARA,
NANJAPPA BLOCK, BANGALORE - 19.
4.
GURUPRASAD
S/O LATE H M SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT C/O RAMADASEGOWDA,
NO 57/1, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
KEMPREGOWDA NAGARA,
NANJAPPA BLOCK, BANGALORE - 19.
5.
SANTHOSH B.BARAD,
S/O BALAKRISHNA,
MAJOR,
R/O DOOR NO 389,
NEAR SHAKUNTHALA HOSPITAL,
HOSUR HOBALI.
…RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 01.09.2016 NOTICE TO R1
TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R5 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6779/2009 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-V, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE CITY,
AWARDING
A
COMPENSATION
OF
RS.3,58,000/-
WITH
- 3 -
MFA No. 3177 of 2012
INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL
THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
The injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident aggravated his pre-existing diabetic condition, resulting in septicemic shock and his death.
Headnote:
MOTOR ACCIDENT - DEATH - COMPENSATION - NEXUS - INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE DECEASED LED TO HIS DEATH - YES
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Srinivasaiah, met with an accident on 02.04.2009 when he was standing on top of a lorry to remove water from the tarpaulin. Another lorry dashed against the parked lorry, causing Srinivasaiah to fall and sustain grievous injuries. He was taken to the hospital and died on 08.07.2009. The petitioners, who were his dependents, filed a petition for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,58,000/- along with interest. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the injuries sustained by the deceased led to his death. The court reasoned that the deceased was a diabetic patient and the injuries sustained in the accident aggravated his health condition, resulting in septicemic shock which caused his death.
Issues: Whether the injuries sustained by the deceased led to his death or not?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the doctor who treated the deceased, which showed that the reason for the death was septicemic shock as a result of multiple injuries sustained. The court also noted that the insurance company did not dispute that the deceased suffered injuries in the accident or that he had any other injuries other than those mentioned by the doctor.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the award of compensation by the Tribunal.
Aggrieved
by
the
judgment
and
award
dated
05.08.2011 passed in MVC No.6779/2009 by the Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal-V,
Court
of
Small
Causes,
Bangalore City (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the respondent No.1
therein has preferred this appeal.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to herein as per their status before the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The deceased Srinivasaiah met with an accident on
02.04.2009 at about 4.30 p.m. when he was standing on the
top of the lorry bearing registration No.KA.06.A.8441 in
order to remove the water on the tarpal and the said lorry
was parked in front of SS Hospital, Davanagere by the side
of the road and during that that time another lorry bearing
registration No.KA.25.9218 being driven in a rash and
- 4 -
negligent manner dashed against the parked lorry. Because
of which, deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries
and he was taken to the hospital and he died on 08.07.2009.
Petitioners
who
were
his
dependents
filed
MVC
No.6779/2009
and
the
Tribunal,
has
awarded
a
compensation of 3,58,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of deposit in Court
under the following heads:-
Loss of dependency
Rs.3,08,000/-
Towards medical expenses
Rs.20,000/-
Loss of love and affection
Rs.10,000/-
Funeral and obsequies
Rs.5,000/-
Transportation of dead body
Rs.5,000/-
Loss of estate
Rs.5,000/-
Loss of consortium
Rs.5,000/-
TOTAL
Rs.3,58,000
Aggrieved by the same, insurance company has filed
this appeal.
Case of respondent No.1-insurance company is
that there is no nexus between the accident and death of the
- 5 -
deceased. It is contended that the accident occurred on
02.04.2009 and the deceased suffered intra trochanteric of
left femur fracture and that does not cause death of the
person and that the Tribunal erred in coming to the
conclusion that the injuries led to his death.
Respondents in the instant appeal though served
have remained absent.
6.
The only question that arises in the instant appeal
is that 'whether the injuries sustained by the deceased led to
his death or not?' The tribunal has reasoned that the injuries
led to his death in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment.
Same is as mentioned below:
"12. In
order
to
substantiate
the
nexus
between the death and the accident the petitioner has
led the evidence of doctor as P.W2 who has conducted
the Post Mortem, he has deposed that he was working
as medical officer of Huliyur Durga Primary Health
Centre and he has conducted the Post Mortem on the
requisition given by Huliyurdurga police. And further
he has deposed that the deceased was bed ridden
since he was discharge from the Siddartha Hospital
- 6 -
and he was having uncontrollable diabetes and the
doctor was visiting him for treatment and the
deceased died due to septicemic shock as a result of
multiple injuries sustained. Wherein he has been
cross
examined,
during
the
course
of
cross
examination doctor has clearly deposed that the
deceased had sustained as per medical records intra
trochanteric of left femur fracture and further it has
been elicited that the petitioner had sustained only
one fracture in the accident and the doctor has clearly
deposed that the fracture itself i.e. fracture of left
intratrochantric fracture does not causes death.
From the evidence of doctor, it is clear that the
injury itself does not result in death and the doctor has
clearly deposed that this deceased was suffering from
diabetes and he was having uncontrollable diabetes
mellitus. When such is the fact, the probabilities can
not be ruled out that as the deceased prior to the
accident was a diabetes patient and he had suffered
fracture, thereby the wound would have not healed
and would have led to infection and thereby he might
have died. Because, the petitioner has produce
Ex.P12 which is the case sheet of Sree Siddhartha
Hospital and Research Centre which goes to show that
prior to the death after the accident t
