Karnataka High Court
Sri Jacob S/O G L Nathan vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 4 March, 2010
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
IN1}flEHKH{COURT(H?KARNHhM&AAT BANGALQRE
DATEB THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH. 2ej1ofjCL*wT_
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICEDV__SHYL. ENbRA§§'_:;t3TMAR' V
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE, _K N '
M.F.A. No 452O'.T§f..2oo6._L1g:_x{jT-%T "
BETWE. EN: '. ' A' i
1. SR1. JACOB _
s/0. G.1.._NATI%IA1\I_,:'~. V 1
AGED:AB.Q'_UT fI?O '
2. T
AGED, €s4_YEARS;' '
BOTH RESI_D'I.N.I'-3r AT NO.E-6,
SRIRA\/1A1'JAGAF{l*,;.HAL POST,
V 1 _VAIRPOIV§I'V ROA'I),"°
BANGALORE«~}'7.
T 2 ''''' ...APPELLAN'I'S
"(BY s;a,i£GUR;.:DEvA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
D3». AT
X 1. THETLORIENTAL INSURANCE co. LTD.
"REGIONAL OFFICE, N044/45,
* LE0 COMPLEX, DAVY'S BUILDING,
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS,
BANGALORE- 1,
BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
2. MR. NARAYANASWAMY.
KAVAK NO.3010, 137" MAIN,
HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR.
BANGALORE438.
(BY SR1. PB. RAJU, ADVOCATEMFOR R.-~''1';v--tf.F: '-
M/S. GUI-IA ASSOCIATES;'ADVS,,'--AND_
.. _
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.
THIS MFA FILED ws 17343} VOif"1\3fXI_VVVA_CT
AGAINST THE JUDMENT"*=_2=LND AWARD 'DATED
05.09.2005 PASSED IN MV_C_'NQ.'1_»807 ONVTHQEJ FILE
OF THE MEMBER';'~~..«MA;CT," -.CQ'UR'I' OF' "SMALL
CAUSES, M.AYOHA~LI., _ * BANGALORE
(SCCH.NO.20}, DISMISSI_NG" 'F§~IE._ 'C.'['gA__I_M PETITION
FOR COMPENS:'\TIO§.\¥C""'Q * ;
't'?iFA'»;'fV4fii():'I\1i1V.1'_\1'G 0N"'F0R HEARING THIS
DAY,K.N--n 'ARAYANA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:' 0
0»jJEDGMENT
'aggpeal fiied under Section 173 of Motor
0 _Ve_'1_;ie1eS"'Act::"_'{f0r Short '1VI.V. Act') is directed against the
jut%gm.ef1t~.eind award dated 05.09.2005 passed by the
..MACT;*¢IE3anga10re {SCCH--20) in MVC N01807/2000
""._VCi'iS1'".iA1iSSing the Said claim petition filed by the
" - 'etppellants/claimants.
2} The appellants as parents of deceased
Lawrence Jacob filed claim petition under SectionV.~?___66
of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs. ;
for the death of Lawrence Jacob inter alia it
that on 30.01.1997 at about 3;3o--p.n§-,. the V
deceased was proceeding on his[rn'o_tor cyc_1e'~ .bea"1i_ng*
registration N0.C.A.Z 2714; clheckpost
Crossing, the car bearing registration No0."iVIE'r{ 2030
driven by its driver it negligent manner
dashed against: '-his pg 0' a result, he
sustained left leg and other parts
of theibody, 'ahdA:.0:.'in01rn.ediately he was shifted to the
hospital, where' he treated as inpatient for several
. . While thveminjured was still under treatment, he
petition seeking compensation for the
per__sonal_inji1ries suffered by him in the accident in
pgquestion, in MVC No.3434/9'7. However, when the said
0' --..petition was still under consideration before the
is ._..Tribunal. the injured Lawrence Jacob died on
09.01.2000 after haxdng undergone amputation of his
4
left leg below the knee on 0906. i999. According to the
claimants, the death of their son Lawrence Jacob was
due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
Upon the death of Laurence Jacob, the claim petition
filed by him was withdrawn by his
independent claim petition namely the "
petition came to be filed seeking compensation. 'i'ot..,c§iie:a .9
death of the deceased Lawrence Jacob';
there is loss of dependency onl'a_ccoi,1ntllo'f death and
that they are also entitled for spent by them
towards the treatmer1t...:'Qfc had been
injured in the acC¢:dentl;'~ala.__l'''--- ' '
3] lc_1aiI_Ii vjletition wa.s contested by the
«. 'ofthe o'ffen_di.:ig Car interaiia on the ground tha.t
' the deceased was not due to the injuries
's.aidlto ho;x;¢ been sustained by him in the motor vehicle
accident, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for
» a'rlij»,?.i compensation.
7
consequential injuries sustained by the rider of the
motor cycle. The documentary evidence produced by the
claimants further establishes the prolonged treatment
undergone by the deceased right from the date4VoTf~_th.e_
accident almost up to the date of his death.
9] The discussion made-iby'*--theVVVi'n'f'it it
its judgment at Para--8 clearllji«V_i:uAdicatles.vAM'.that "
deceased Lawrence Jacob'--..VfiW'as "undead "eoVn.tiVnuojus
treatment from the date of alrnost to the
date of his death. Inalspite' the Tribunal
proceeds to .tlIeVV__claitr1ants have failed to prove
that the death of rdeceafised was due to the injuries
sustained in thezlmotor vehicle accident.
of the judgment under appeal
the following two aspects said to be
en'z.ergi_;1g,i?orn the evidence weighed very much in the
Lthe teamed member of the Tribunal to come to
it *..Vthe...'A"conc1usion that the death was not due to the
V. ,_..acc1'.denta1 injuries.
8
i} The considerable interval from the
date of the accident till the date of
death of the deceased.
ii) Lack of medical evidence pin--pointing
the death as a result of the injuries
suffered by the deceased in the"
accident. '
11) The conclusion appears to be on V'
misreading and misappreciatio_n""ofothe evidence on
record. The medical evidence. on rec'ord~. _ciearl3{
establishes that, in the accident the V' d.eceased""sV1iffered
fracture of left fronto ;.parietal----b:one',"gclosed'fracture of
the "of..uf)per third and middle
third Va-nd"_.i'racture of the both bones
of the .1eg.._ 4l"Eh'e'.:_"..'evidence on record further
g_ est:-tblis_hes that though the injured took treatment in
' immediately after the accident and he
underweiity surgery for correction of the fractures,
infection set in all along and due to the infection, his
V. ldeftieg iivas amputated on 09.06.1999, still the infection
iemained and almost lead him to death. According to
it "the evidence of the Doctor, the death of the deceased
9
was due to multiple organ infection and cardiac failure.
The infection which began during the course of the
treatment to the injuries suffered by the son of the
claimants in the accident persisted all 3,
complicated the treatment and in spite of _
best medical attention, the injured did u
within about 7 months the,reafter;» .A
succumbed being unab1Ve'._t0 its-cover Kfrcrn theft
consequences. Even assumingf'that_Vtherewas a cardiac
arrest, again it is attribiitablfe to on account of
i1'lj11I'i€S'.""--v.j;h€1'€fi£1'€, '=the_'Tribunal is not justified in
holding that not due to the injuries but
for otherxrneasons, 'I'_he«.._conclusion of the Tribunal is
.~ . A ob3«i~%:).usiA and con'trary.v
wgoing through the evidence on record,
orA1e._jcoiiid_;s'ay that the death of the deceased was only
due totlie injuries sustained by him in the accident and
for any other reason. In this View of the matter, the
if ._finding of the Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the
evidence on record and is the result of improper
10
appreciation and misreading of the evidence on record
and therefore it is liable to be set aside.
i3) Accordingly we hold that the claimants have
proved that their son Lawrence Jacob died on account
of injuries sustained by him in the motor""vey";i_clei2'»_it
if Ar?' i.
accident that occurred on 30.01.1997
they are entitled for compensation thebwrier'
insurer of the offending vehicle.
14) No doubt, the Tiiburyilalgin its judgrrient has
not qiiantiiiedl vicorripensation"lpayable. The perusal
of thegrecordlj all necessary inputs are
available' record the finding regarding
V. q1V_ta'ntuin of con'ipen_sation. In fact, the method in which
' the ,covI_ripe'n.sation in cases involving the death occurring
linlniotot-'V-\jz*e15;ic1e accident could be assessed, is almost
well settled. Therefore, there is no need for remitting the
" icase to the Tribunal only for the purpose of quantifying
the compensation, though Mr. I-"KB. Raju, learned
i
11
counsel for the insurer sought remand of the case for
such purpose.
15} According to the claimants, the deceased
was a Bar Bender by profession and he was aged
31 years and he was earning Rs.150/ - _
substantiate this, PW.1 has examined: it
However, except the oral evidence i-oif.flvPV'J}1i...'n-oi"other; i
evidence is produced to sub'st.antiateV_ that the jdeceasledd
was earning Rs.150/-- per g he getting the
job through--out the V3.vg"g,A;rf T:/T1'ie.i"deceAase_d was an able
bodied livelihood, so, we can
safely _his-- per day. Since he
was' -adrnittediy" 'a bachelor, 50% of his income is
toabe deducted towards the personal expenses
52?; and the balance of 50% has to be
treatedv' contribution of the faniily. Since the
xdveceaseid was a bachelor, the age of the younger of the
i' is required to be taken for iinding-out the
V. ..~e.ppropriate multiplier. In this case, the age of the
mother of the deceased is shown as 58 years.
12
Therefore, on that basis, the appropriate muitiplier
wouid be ' 9 '. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a
sum of Rs.1,62,000/-- towards loss of dependency
(Rs.1,50OX12x9). In addition to this, the ciaimants».
also entitied for the compensation under _
heads namely, Rs.i0,000/~ towards loss» if
Rs.10,000/-- towards Transportationil-~-off"the'
and funeral expenses and
love and affection. K V f 'V
16) The clainiarits they
have spent a's.urn_ Rs:.'3.r29_,324/« towards the medical
treatment of the date of the accident
upto' the date of 'hisV'de'ath. As discussed earlier, the
"had taken treatment as inpatient for severai
piagued with infections and ultimately
amputation, even then it appears he
could not recover from infections and that ledihis death.
f' --..'1"h.e.refore, it is reasonable to accept the contention of
d the claimants that they have spent huge amount for the
treatment of their son. The ciaimants have produced
13
the bills issued by the Hospital Authorities. __'_l'he
amount covered under these bills works-out
over Rs.3,00.000/-- The claimants aiso
spent considerable amount .towards.' coIn}feyan§;%3.
attendant charges, etc. Taking
these factors, we are of the--opinionA"th__at~
are entitled to just, and .lc'om.peni§sation.
Therefore, it is just .reaso:ii:1a;t:)l41.l¢:v*;'ltl.1f__g/fiaward a sum of
Rs.3,30,000 and other
incidental; are entitled
for totfl--corri~plensiatioi1jtof:VRs.':'§--,v32;'000/-- .
1"'?}'_ " appeal is allowed in part.
The j1;dgnient'and dated passed 05.09.2005 in
~ %.g'tt3o'7/2o0o"'0t§y'lthe MACT {SCCH--20}. Bangalore.
ldisniissing the.}~petition. is hereby set aside. The claim
pet_ition ~is0'fallowed in part by awarding compensation of
/-- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand
--..V'onl_ff) with interest at 8% pa. from the date of petition
gltill the date of deposit. The 15' Respondent--Insurance
/3 K .-
€-¢ 14 Company shall deposit the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.
Upon deposit of the compensation:"=.ajnou.nt!V"
Rs.3,30.000/~ being the medical'. anti' expenses with proportionate _i_ntere'st""'shaJ1.v-jbgi to the father (1st claimant} and"vo'at'ofVV 'amount of Rs.2,02,000/--, p axnonnting to Rs.}.O1,000/- with be paid to Claimants} the balance 50% with be kept in term _tbveVe1aimants, with liberty for thern' interest.
5 * Awartt 2dr'ai:vnbVaoeorclingly.
Sah JUDGE safe gssgg KGR*