JUDGMENT

Heard Shri. G. N. Raichur, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. B. S. Sangati, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the validity of judgment and award passed in MVC No.179/2009 dated 08.03.2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Itinerate Court at Byadgi.

3. Facts in brief which are necessary for disposal of present appeal are as under:

4. A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘M.V. Act’), by the injured in a road traffic accident that occurred on 08.06.2008 at about 10.00 p.m., involving a Tractor Trailor Unit bearing registration No.KA-27/TA-1341 and Trailor No.KA- 26/T-1598. The injured was travelling as a coolie/hamali in the said Tractor Trailor Unit.

5. Further he had suffered the accidental injuries and treated in the hospital and discharged on 05.12.2008.

6. After discharge, he has filed a claim petition seeking compensation. However, on account of the accidental injuries sustained by the claimant, ultimately he committed suicide and died.

7. The claim petition got amended by bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased claimant who are the dependents of the deceased.

8. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing necessary written statement in respect of the amended claim petition averments.

9. The Tribunal raised following issues based on the rival contentions of the parties:

“ISSUES

1. Whether the petitioner proves that, deceased sustained injuries in the accident on

08.06.2008 and died as stated in the petition?

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?

3. What order or award?”

10. In order to prove the case of the claimant, one of the legal representatives of deceased claimant got examined as PW.1 and relied upon 16 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.16.

11. On behalf of respondent-Insurance Company no oral evidence is adduced and on behalf of respondent one document is marked at Ex.R.1 i.e., Insurance Policy.

12. The Tribunal on cumulative consideration of the material evidence placed on record, allowed the claim petition by awarding a sum of Rs.4,93,582/- as compensation contending that there is a nexus established between the suicidal death of the claimant and the accidental injuries suffered by him and dependents are entitled for the aforesaid compensation.

13. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is in appeal.

14. Sri G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the material on record would not indicate that the death of the claimant is due to accidental injuries. Therefore, Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the dependents of the deceased in a sum of Rs.4,93,582/-, as referred to supra and sought for allowing the appeal.

15. He also pointed out that in such case, when the person has died, after he has been discharged, it has to be construed as natural death and therefore, claim petition ought to have been dismissed and hence, sought for allowing the appeal.

16. Per contra, Sri B.S.Sangati, learned counsel representing the claimants vehemently contended that though claimant got discharged finally on 05.12.2008 as per Ex.P.10, for the injuries sustained in by the claimant he could not attend to his day to day work and he was feeling depressed in his life. Ultimately, on account of depression suffered by him due to accidental injuries, the injured committed suicide on 24.12.2009. Therefore, there is sufficient nexus between the death of the claimant and accidental injuries suffered by him and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

17. In view of rival contentions, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is pertinent to note that the original claimant-Neelappa Angaragatti being Hamali of the tractor trailor be