Karnataka High Court
Indira W/O Pandappa Dyavanur vs Krishnan S Yallareddiyavar on 30 October, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
M.F.A.NO.23198 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. INDIRA W/O PANDAPPA DYAVANUR
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE,
R/O : ANNIGERI, TAL : NAVALGUND,
DIST: GADAG.
2. VANITA RAVINDRA PATIL
AGE : 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O : ANNIGERI, TAL : NAVALAGUND,
DIST: GADAG.
3. BHIMAPPA PANDAPPA DYAVANUR
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O : ANNIGERI, TAL:NAVALAGUND,
DIST: GADAG.
4. RACHANA KRISHNA YALLAREDDIYAVAR
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: ANNIGERI,TAL:NAVALAGUND,
DIST: GADAG.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.M.KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KRISHNAN S YALLAREDDIYAVAR
AGE: MAJOR,OCC:OWNER OF MARUTI CAR,
R/O : ANNIGERI, TAL : NAVALGUND,
DIST: GADAG.
2
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO, LTD
P B ROAD, SUJATA COMPLEX,
HUBLI.
... RESPONDENTS
(R1-SERVED)
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2012, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.171/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MEMBER MACT, GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWEING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION .
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants being the legal heirs of the deceased injured by assailing the judgment and award passed by the District Judge and M.A.C.T.Gadag, in MVC No.171 of 2010 dated 09.10.2012.
2. Heard, appeal is admitted and with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3
3. Brief facts of the case are that, Pandappa filed the claim petition for claiming the compensation under Section 166 of MV Act. For being injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident which took place on 24.11.2008 at about 6.30 p.m. on Naragund-Munavalli road near Naragund town. Thereafter, he filed the claim petition and during the pendency of the said petition subsequently he died and thereafter the legal heirs of the deceased wife and children filed the application and the same was allowed. After considering the said facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the application filed by the legal heirs is not maintainable and as such the petition was came to be dismissed by the impugned order, assailing the same appellants are before this Court.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the impugned 4 judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to evidence and material placed on record and the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence. It is further contended, the injured died due to the accidental injuries sustained by him in the accident and this fact has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. It is further contended, the Tribunal has allowed the legal heirs to come on record and erroneously dismissed the petition by holding that the petition is not maintainable, which is not correct. He further contended, the appellant/claimants have spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- for the treatment of the deceased and as such the petition may be allowed. On these grounds he prayed for allowing the said petition.
5. On behalf of respondent/insurer a proxy counsel submitted that the petition has been rightly dismissed by holding that the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to come on record, in view of the ratio 5 laid down in the decision of this Court in the case of Kannamma Vs. Deputy General Manager, reported in ILR 1990 KAR 4300. He further contended that there are no good grounds made out by the appellants so as to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. It is not in dispute that after filing of the claim petition the deceased Pandappa died during the pendency of the claim petition and even the petitioners have also not produced any records to substantiate the fact that the deceased died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. When, there is no nexus between the death and the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident in question and as such by application of the common law rule 'actio personalis moritur cum persona', the legal heirs of the deceased appellant will not be having any right to come on record and continue the proceedings initiated by the deceased 6 which has been initiated at the time when he was alive for having sustained the injuries. This proposition of law has been held in the decision reported in the case of Kannamma Vs. Deputy General Manager, reported in ILR 1990 KAR 4300, so also in the case of Uttam Kumar Vs. Madhav & another, reported in ILR 2002 KAR 1864.
7. In view of the above decision of this Court the appellants are not entitled to prosecute the said petition which was filed by the deceased and the said fact has been rightly discussed by the Tribunal and has come to the right conclusion. Though, during the course of argument the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the legal heirs have spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards the medical expenses of the deceased and as such they are entitle to come on record. The order to bring the legal heirs on record itself is not a correct order, but however the Tribunal has 7 allowed the legal heirs application and subsequently dismissed the petition.
8. In that light of the ratio laid down in the above decision the contention of the learned counsel is not acceptable in law and as such the appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
Registry is directed to sent back the records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-