Karnataka High Court
Akkamahadevi W/O Channappa Radder, vs K. M. Herobeedi on 30 January, 2013
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
M.F.A NO.20145/2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. AKKAMAHADEVI W/O CHANNAPPA RADDER,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O AMARAVATI, TQ. HUNGUND
NOW AT HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD
2. AKSHATA D/O CHANNAPPA RADDER,
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O AMARAVATI, TQ. HUNGUND
NOW AT HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD
MINOR, REP. BY NATURAL MOTHER
AKKAMAHADEVI W/O CHANNAPPA RADDER
3. SAVITHA D/O CHANNAPPA RADDER,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O AMARAVATI, TQ. HUNGUND
NOW AT HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD
MINOR, REP. BY NATURAL MOTHER
AKKAMAHADEVI W/O CHANNAPPA RADDER
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S M KALWAD, ADV.)
AND:
1. K. M. HEROBEEDI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MUMMIGATTI, TQ. DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD
-2-
2. THE MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
JANARDHAN ARCADE, P.B. ROAD,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1)
MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:29-06-2010
PASSED IN MVC.NO.1806/2000 (NEW NUMBER)
[MVC.NO.0062/2001(OLD NUMBER)] ON THE FILE OF THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II, DHARWAD,
SITTING AT HUBLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is posted for admission, with the consent of Counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
The claimants who are the legal representatives of one Channappa Radder who was the original claimant, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Fast Track Court- II at Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, in MVC No.1806/2000 (MVC No.62/2001) dated 29.06.2010, have filed this appeal assailing the said judgment and award.
-3-
2. The relevant facts of the case are that, on 08.04.2000, Channappa Radder who was said to be standing near Sadhanakeri Bus Stop at about 6.30 p.m. was injured on account of rash and negligent driving of the Maxi-cab bearing No.KA 25/4060. He is said to be a businessman and on account of the said injuries, it was contended that, he had sustained permanent disability and a claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. During the pendancy of the claim petition, Channappa Radder died on 13.02.2001. The claim petition was amended. His legal representatives came on record and contended that the death was on account of accidental injuries sustained by him on 08.04.2000. Therefore, they sought compensation for the death of Channappa Radder.
3. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
i. Whether petitioner proves that on 8.4.2000 at about 6.30 p.m., when he was standing near Sadhanakeri Bus Stop, a Maxi-cab bearing -4- No.KA.25/4060 came in rash and negligent manner and hit to the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner has sustained injuries as alleged in the petition?
ii. Whether second respondent proves that the driver had no valid and effective driving licence as alleged in para-5 of the objections?
iii. Whether petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
iv. What order or Award?
4. It is significant to note that the issues were not recast after the amendment of the claim petition, whereby the claim was in respect of the fatal accident. In support of their case, the claimants let-in the evidence of four persons, two of them being doctors and have produced 165 documents which were marked as Exs. P1 to P165, while the respondent produced the copy of policy at Ex.R1. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative and issue No.3 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.31,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% -5- p.a. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimants have preferred this appeal.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the material on record as well as the original documents.
6. At the outset, it is to be noted that, though the injured claimant Channappa Radder has filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries that he sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 08.04.2000, he died on 13.02.2001 during the pendency of the claim petition. His legal representatives impleaded themselves in the claim petition and filed the amended petition, and the claim petition was prosecuted by them.
Significantly, in the amended claim petition, there is no mention about the death of the original claimant being as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. It is in this context, that the Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-claimants may be permitted to suitably amend the claim petition incorporating the subsequent events and seek -6- appropriate compensation in the matter. The Tribunal has also proceeded as if the claim petition was one for injuries, in other words, there being nexus between the death of Channappa Radder on 13.02.2001 on account of the injuries sustained by him on 18.02.2000 is not taken into consideration. However, there is evidence to show that the injured was under treatment from 08.04.2000 up to 01.02.2001, during which period he was admitted in various hospitals and had taken treatment. But there is no finding even by the Tribunal as to whether the death of the original claimant was due to the accidental injuries. This is possibly for the reason that the claim petition was not amended to contend that it was a case of fatal accident and not just where the original claimant had sustained injuries and the legal representatives had impleaded themselves in order to prosecute the petition as being one for injuries.
7. In that view of the matter, having regard to the interest of justice, the impugned judgment and award is set aside. The appellant/claimants are at liberty to amend the claim petition so as to take whatever pleas, that are -7- appropriate in order to contend that the death of the original claimant was on account of accidental injuries. The respondents are at liberty to file further objections, if such an amendment application is filed. The Tribunal to frame issues in accordance with the amended pleadings. Both parties are at liberty to let-in any additional evidence, if any. The Tribunal to dispose of the claim petition in accordance with law. All other contentions and issues are left open.
The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Since the parties are represented by the respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 04.03.2013. Since the claim petition is of the year 2000, the parties are to cooperate with the Tribunal in disposing of the matter as expeditiously as possible and at any rate by 30.09.2013.
SD/-
JUDGE gab