Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs M S Siddagangaiah on 30 July, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
Dated the 30m day 0fJu1y, 2009_;~~---- 4 5 j__ ''
:BEFORE:
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'rIc»E__; N.
M.F.A. No.89:5_L2_9_0_Si? '
BETWEEN : V '
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY L11)' 4
No.20 JALAHALLI CROSS,
CHOKKASANDRA, ._
BANGALORE560 057. ' "
THROUGH ITSREGIONAL' QI*£'£c'E_,_ .
LE0 SHOPPINGZC-OMP--_LEX;"
44/45, RESIDENCY Ro;AflD1..cRoSS. .
BANGALGRE5560 é'
BY IFS fiE'Gwié53NAf; V
. ' ' ...APPELLAN'I'
(By Sr::P'EEE':H'1', _§"'o:R SEETHARAMA mo. ADV.)
3 SA
S' Si':iADAG4ANGAmH
_ =S /0_S14_1Vy.Rp DRAIAH
4' .AGED'ABQU.'I'~29 YEARS,
SINCE BY HIS LRS
.. 1;; S SHIVARUDRAIAH
" S/0 HONNAGANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
2. GANGAMMA
W/O S SHIVARUDRALAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
3. RENUKAMMA 2
W/O M.S.SIDDAGANGAlAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
4. LIKITHA
D/ O M S SIDDAGANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS.
5. MADHUMATHI
D /O M S SIDDAGANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOs.4 AND 5 ARE '
MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTI~.{ER . A _
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RENUKAMIVLA.' "
ALL ARE R/AT MAHADEVAPLIR.
NELAMANGALA TALUK,""«- 5 ~
BANGALORE DISTRICT; '0 .7 - '-
6. GJAGADEESR' A _ -
S/O GLITQTJSIDDAPPA _
R/AT1;3_AR;?xN;ANTNA LAYOUT,
SUBHASHNA.GAR,""---- ' '
'«NELANANGALA,.TOWN.
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS
" _ '{3};-'3r1;-TI RSUNDARAVMURTHY, ADV. FOR R1 TO 3.)
FILED U/ S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
TREAT ..JUDGE§\&~ENT AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2007
PASSED ACMVC NO.318/2005 ON THE FILE OF XVI
JUDGE, MACT, METROPOLITAN AREA.
BANGALORE, SCCI"I~»14:, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.6,z8.4;,"00O/~ INTEREST AT 6% RA. FROM THE DATE OF
., RAPE-TITION TILL REALISATION.
A This MFA coming On for hearing this day, the court
--Gelivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed by the insurance company to set aside the impugned award on the ground that there__no nexus between the death of original claimant suffered by him in the accident. 'In. the tribunal ought not to have granted V' loss of dependency. "fT:1e'l_ii1.surance' contended that assessment of_ Qrvthe higher side. A it A it
2. E haven '~heaii'd I I appearing for Sri.B.C.Se'etli'araina,__ for appellant and learned counsel lclaiiniants. "l
3. 4_lea.rne'd. 'for the insurance company relying judgment this court reported in ILR 2002 Karnataka t.he~--._case of M.P.Ganga.rangaiah and others V/s. The and others) would submit that even if it is held thatdeath of a person was as a result of bodily injuries ..s3.ista.ined in the accident. the legal representatives of the l 'gldeceased would be entitled to compensation for loss to estate . ---- of the deceased.
3. Sr"i.V.R.Sundara Murthy learned counsel for the claimants relying on the judgment reported in Supreme Court Motor Accident Judgments page 401, {in~«~theVi:c'ase Ramathal & others V/s. Managing Director Corporation, Coimbatore} would that:
established that the death was ldueatoAlnjuries.lsfufferedv accident and they are entitletlito. the head loss of dependen<iy__in add'itinc$';j41'utV"?(",ipomloevnsation under conventional heads.
3. From'Vfned§ca1._V¢yid.g;i'cel"and medical records, it is seen that if had suffered following injuneszv V' * 3.1} r_actu;*e of hilateral femur {Fracture of left and A right"femur)
ii)' «.4:Fii~*a_(:ture of pelvis iii} T, Stxfieture urethra Vi iv} compression fracture if V Lacerated wound on the elbow Vi)" Lacerated injuries on toes ,4'; Due to spinal injuries, the claimant was rendered Hpmiaraplegia and he was totally immobilised and was bed I;/\j .5
ridden from the date of accident i.e., on 2.4.2004 till 21.9.2005 {tiii the date of death).
5. The postmortem examination report as perig'iE~x.P-8 reveals the cause of death as due to septicemia as infected bedsores. H V d H
6. The leamed counsel for thejinsurance submit that the accident occurred pg deceased died on 21.9.2005» a five months. Therefore. there" between the injuries suffered in thedéaccidemtciianddithe'death. V'As '.narrated.._ahovleV,"'a.s' a' resuit of injuries suffered in the acciderit; elaimantiwavs rendered a paraplegia and he was totailjr immohi'ii_sed. :He was bedridden from the date of 'accidentgtilizthe date of his death. As a result, he developed were infected leading to septicemia, which was th.e.c'a'use of death. The insurance company has not Aestablished any other intervening factor, which had led to ' '._the'death of original claimant. Therefore, the claimants have " ~ established there was direct nexus between injuries suffered by original claimant and his death.
N» '"*"°"'i"""
7. In the decision reported in ILR 200:2 Karnatake 1864 (in the case of Uttam Kumar V/s. Madhav & another)V_Vttie'~wful1 bench of this court dealing with the claim under Section 1 10A of the Motor Vehicles Act'; "
that: V l U b 4' M l "13. After elaborate Jdiscussionll order, the Full Bench answered thus:._ V E (1') A claim petition underxf-3e'ction 110A of the Mom; ifenicleit "1939, by the person sustaining a motor accident,' A for personal iry'u1jie's" .. _ '-cony:>erisation towards 'c"gf'vVinco:rie;""e:tc., (loss to estate) :"c_an:1ot,.lonVsucir1, death occurring not as a result or bodily iryuries sustained _ froml niotot accident, be procecuted by his/ her ' leyyalxrepresentatives; but V .12}-._Vclaim petition presented under Section is ifiog vlofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the person ilsustained bodily injuries in a motor claiming compensation for personal ifgunes as also for compensation towards expenses, loss Qf income etc. (loss to estate) can, on such person's death occurring as a result or consequence of bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident, be prosecuted by his/ her legal N dttogttcic representatives only in so far as the claim for compensation in that claim petition relates to losspiij to estate of the deceased person due to ~ "
ifliuries sustained in the motor accident."
8. In the case on hand, the claiinipetitioin wasV:fl«l.edvvVu:i'1de'r Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles .'S_ec'tion it the Claims Tribunal shall itreia't._an3f. reportfloiflaccidentsii forwarded to it under ,..snb»sec'tion[6i}ii"of Section 3:58 as an application for compensationii'Lui:d:er But a similar provision was ill0A of the Motor Vehicle Act; " was no need for claimants.vto":rialtE:,_a_separateapplication after the death of originals cl.airn.arii;:':- pi ztrhat has been held by this court "'the stated supra is not app1i_§cabie to theoiifacts of this case. Even otherwise, the .have established that the death of original ii'c.la'ii._1fian't 'consequent to the injuries suffered by him in thei""---acc:_ide'nti. Therefore, the contention of insurance ]company' that the tribunal should have restricted claim for t._i'eo'mpensation payable under the head of loss to estate ..vc-ainnot be accepted.
9 termed as excessive. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award.
As regards grant of interest, it is necessary__'toV'l'st.ate" up that the right to claim loss of dependency would__:aI:i;se the death of the original claimant. Thé'origin'§a1 on 21.09.2005. The Tribunal app_lic'ation permitted the legal representathtesg tOA."()I)I'.I'.lV€'w..0_V.1fi on 10.08.2006. On 01.12.2005, legal lrepresepntatiiies oilioriginal claimant made an application .reeord. Therefore, claimants are entitled awarded under the 01.12.2005 and they arev..Aentit1ed'l'to:' awarded under the head "medical eXp.ensesl': date of petition till the date of realisation. In thevcircurristances, the impugned award needs rnod.iiica_tion-regarding grant of compensation. . I pass the following:
ORDER it , *m'e- appeal is accepted in part. Compensation awarded
-_h3r_l't'ne tribunal is continued. Claimants are entitled to interest at 6% per annum on a sum of Rs.5,72,000/~» from 5;:-g,..,,.,.e€ 10 01.12.2005 till the date of realisation and interest at 6% per annum on a sum of Rs.}.,12,000/-- from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The apportionment, payment and investment of compensation shali be in the ratio e\[o1\_r_er1_ in the impugned award. The amount in _ transferred to IVIACT at Bangalore City. Par=ties':a,re*~:tiirectted*«..
to bear their costs.
.e__ 3"' figs S913