JUDGMENT

The appellants have challenged the judgment passed in MVC No.170/2008 dated 05.10.2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-10 at Tumkur ('the Tribunal' in short) in dismissing the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for brevity).

2. The appellants were the petitioners and the respondents were the respondents before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Briefly stated the facts are that, one Krishnappa (‘the deceased’ in short) was the husband of first petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. On 04.07.2007 at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased after completing his masonary work while going on the left side of the road on National Highway-207 between Doddaballapura-Dabaspete, near Geetha School was hit by a Hero Honda bearing No.KA-05/HC-8706 causing him head injury. The deceased was admitted to government hospital at Dabaspete, General Hospital, Tumkur and thereafter at NIMHANS, Bangalore. The deceased seeking compensation for the injuries sustained had presented a petition under Section 166 of the Act. During the pendency of the said petition, he died. Hence, the petitioners have come on record with a plea that the deceased died on account of head injury sustained in the accident and they being the dependants are entitled to claim compensation. The second respondent/Insurance Company though admitted issuance of insurance contested the claim that the rider of the motor cycle was not holding driving licence and there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and it has no liability to pay the compensation.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the claimant proves that on

04.07.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. on N.H.207 road, Dabaspet-Doddaballapur road, near Geetha School, deceased met with an accident due to wrongful use of Hero Honda bearing Reg.NO.KA-05-HC-8706 by its rider, thereby the deceased sustained injuries and ultimately died?

2. To what compensation the claimants are entitled to? And from whom?

3. What order?

Additional issue

1. Whether the claimants prove that they are the L.Rs. of Krishnappa s/o Nanjundappa?”

5. On behalf of the petitioners, first petitioner was examined herself as PW-1 and produced as many as 16 documents as per Exs.P1 to P16. No evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents.

6. The Tribunal after considering the evidence recorded its finding that the petitioners have not produced any acceptable materials to show the nexus between the accident and death of the deceased and dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this appeal on various grounds. 7. I have heard the arguments of Sri.J.G.Kumbar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.N.M.Shubham, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that accident took place on 04.07.2007, the medical records point out head injury suffered by the deceased. History of the accident was recorded by the government hospital, Dabaspete on the very day. Because of the seriousness of the injuries, the deceased was taken to NIMHANS on 06.07.2007 and thereafter on the very day, he was admitted to K.C.General Hospital, Bangalore and was discharged on 29.07.2007 in Coma condition. Because of this, the deceased lost his mental stability and he left home one week prior and ultimately on 07.09.2008, he died explaining the nexus between the death and injury, but the Tribunal failed to consider it. After turning to coma, the deceased became mentally ill person, which amounts to civil death causing him 100% disability. Even on that ground, petitioners are entitled to compensation. When the Tribunal found that the materials placed before it is not sufficient, it ought to have directed the petitioners to plac