M.F.A.No.2218/2016 is filed by the Insurance Company

and M.F.A. Crob. No.16/2021 is filed by the cross objector

challenging the judgment and award dated 23.12.2015 passed in

MVC No.3561/2012 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes

and Additional MACT, Bengaluru (8the Tribunal9 for short).

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 06.04.2012 at

about 6.00 a.m., the injured was proceeding in the motorcycle

as a pillion rider and the said motorcycle was driven by one

Naveen from Kokkada towards Dharmasthala slowly and

cautiously and when they reached near Madarithota Cross Road,

at that time, one Innova Car came from Dharmasthala with high

speed and took a sudden right turn in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed against the motorcycle and caused the

accident. Due to the impact, the pillion rider fell down and

sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Belthangadi

Government hospital wherein he was given first aid treatment

and then shifted to Mangalore hospital wherein he was treated

5

as an inpatient from 06.04.2012 to 11.04.2012 and he also

underwent for surgery for comminuted fracture of tibia and

fibula and later he was shifted to Unity Lifetime hospital for

further treatment from 13.04.2012 to 18.04.2012 and again he

got admitted to Apollo BGS hospital since the fracture of fibula

and tibia was not united and he underwent for surgery once

again for external fixation and discharged in the month of

February 2013 and he died on 14.06.2013.

4.

The contention of the claimant that the death is on

account of the accidental injuries and the contention of the

Insurance Company that no nexus between the accidental

injuries and cause of death and the Tribunal after considering

both the oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim

petition.

5.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the

Tribunal,

Insurance

Company

has

filed

the

appeal

in

M.F.A.No.2218/2016 contending that the Tribunal has committed

an error in allowing the claim petition and the order of directing

to pay compensation amount is erroneous. It is a case of injured

who has filed the claim petition and now under appeal and the

6

compensation awarded is also on the higher side. The counsel

also would vehemently contend that no postmortem was

conducted in the case and no medical records to show that the

nature of injuries suffered by him is on account of the accident

and further submits that no expert doctor has been examined to

prove the nexus between the cause of death and the accidental

injuries. The Tribunal has rightly comes to the conclusion that

breathlessness suffered by him is independent of the injuries

sustained in the accident and erred in granting compensation to

the claimants treating the same as accidental injuries. The said

finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and ought not to have

granted the compensation. It is also contended that the

claimants have failed to prove nexus between the death and the

injuries and ought to have held that the said Yellappa died

naturally and hence awarding of compensation is erroneous. It is

also contended that the Full Bench of this Court in KANNAMMA

vs DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER reported in ILR 1990 KAR

4300 and UTTAM KUMAR vs MADHAV AND ANTOHER

reported in ILR 2002 KAR 1864 categorically held that when a

claim petition is filed for grant of compensation on account of

injuries suffered in the accident and injured/claimant dies

7

independent of the injuries suffered in the accident, the claim

petition itself is unsustainable hence, granting of compensation

is erroneous.

6.

The learned counsel appearing for the claimant

would contend that the accident was occurred on 06.04.2012

and he was an inpatient in different hospital for a total period of

17 days and he had suffered the fracture of tibia and fibula and

the fracture was not united and once again he was admitted to

the hospital and subjected for surgery in the month of February

201