Judgment:
(Prayer: M.F.A No. 7581/2010 is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of othe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and award dated 22.07.2009 on the file of X Additional judge and member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (Scch-16) in M.V.C. N0.8424/2006 by allowing the Claim of Compensation and seeking Enhancement of Compensation.â
M.F.A. No. 8516/2009 is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Judgment and Award dated 22.07.2009 on the file of X Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (Scch-16) In M.V.C. N0.8424/2006 and setting aside the same by Reducing the Compensation Amount.)
1. These two appeals are filed by the claimants and the insurer being aggrieved by the same Judgment and Award dated 22nd July 2009 passed in M.V.C. No. 8424/2006 on the file of the X Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-16). The Tribunal by its impugned Judgment and Award, awarded a sum of Rs.2,26,411/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
2. The Learned Counsel for claimants contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement, learned Counsel forâappellant/insurer contended that the direction of the Tribunal to indemnify the award amount cannot be sustained on the ground that the Driver did not possess the valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the Insurer is not liable to indemnity the award amount. It is the specific case of the Insurer that the death is not on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and issuing direction to the insurer to indemnify the award amount cannot be sustained.
3. The brief facts of the case on hand are that Sri. S.J. Dharma, the injured had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation against the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. During the pendency of the claim petition Sri. S.J. Dharma died leaving behind the appellants herein as legal representatives, viz., wife, parents and minor daughter. Accordingly, they have come on record. They have contended that on 02.11.2006 at about 7.30 p.m. S.J. Dharma while crossing the Old Madras Road, near NGEF, Byappanahalli, Bengaluru as a pedestrian from north to south direction carefully and cautiously observing the traffic rules and regulations, at that point of time, all oi a sudden a rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-03/EV- 4826 came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from east to west direction, lost control of motorcycle and dashed against the claimant/deceased. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained multiple injuries on his head, legs, hands, face and other parts of the body. Immediately he has been shifted to Manipal Hospital, where he took treatment as inpatient.
4. it is the further case of the appellant that in spite of taking best efforts for saving the deceased, they could not save the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries on 06.09.2007. It is contended that the appellants have spent Rs. 1,50,000/- towards medicines, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, Rs.50,000/- towards medical treatment and funeral expenses. Further, they have contended that the deceased was working as Printer Operator and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/ per month. He was the only bread earning member in the family and the entire family was depending upon the income of the deceased. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost financial, social and moral support and the wife has lost her life partner at her young age, minor child has lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance of father and parents have lost their son and put to mental shock and agony, due to untimely death of the deceased. The entire family is under financial distress. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the appellants are claiming compensation against the appellant/insurer and owner of the offending vehicle.
5. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in turn after hearing both the parties and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record has allowed the claim petition in part by awarding a sum of Rs.2,26,411/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization only towards the amount spent towards medical expenses, loss of income during treatment period and loss of amenities, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges holding that the appellants have failed to prove that the death of the deceased is on account of tne injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Without framing appropriate issue, the Tribunal has disposed of the claim petition awarding compensation in respect of only the injuries sustained by the deceased in the road traffic accident. Being dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, the appellant/insurer also has presented the appeal.â
6. It is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants Sri. D.L. Murthv appearing for S.S. Haveri and N.S. Mallikarjuna at the outset that the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the evidence of Doctors PWs 3 and 4 who treated the deceased. They have stated that on clinical and medical examination of the deceased, the deceased has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. Taking hyper technical ground that there is no report of the Post-mortem as such produced or inquest report and without accepting the evidence of Doctor, the Tribunal awarded compensation considering only the injuries of the deceased. No compensation is awarded towards loss of dependency on account of death of deceased.
7. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh, to enable the LRs of the deceased to prove that the death of the deceased is on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, reserving liberty to the appellants/claimants to adduce additional and oral documentary evidence, after affording opportunity to the parties or their counsel and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
8. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, inter-alia contended and vehemently submitted that after careful reading of the evidence of Doctors PWs 3 and 4, who have stated that the death of the deceased is not on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident on 06 09.2007 and the Tribunal has justified in awarding reasonable compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. But however, he has not disputed that the amount awarded is on lower side towards loss of amenities, conveyance, nourishment, loss of income during the laid up period and if the appellants/claimants are in a position to establish that the death of the deceased is on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident after producing the additional oral and documentary evidence on that issue, the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh and all the grounds urged by both the parties may be left open.
9. In the light of the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, as stated supra, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of the case, it would suffice for this Court, to safe guard the interest of the claimants and also Insurer, if the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back for reconsideration afresh.
10. In the light of the facts and circumstances referred above, these two appeals filed by the claimants and insurer are allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 22nd July 2009 in M.V.C. No. 8424/2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.
The matter stands remitted back to the jurisdictional Tribunal to reconsider the same afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity to the claimants and insurer.
Claimants are permitted to file necessary application to bring the LRs of the deceased Respondent No.2.
The appellants/claimants and appellant/insurer are permitted to file necessary application to lead additional oral and documentary evidence within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
In the event such application is filed, the Tribunal is directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in compliance of the directions issued by this Court as referred above.
The appellants/claimants and appellant/insurer both are directed to appear personally or through their Counsel before the jurisdictional Tribunal on 9th February 2015 at 11.00 A.M. to collect necessary further date of hearing.
Registry is directed to transmit the entire amount deposited by the appellant/insurer to the jurisdictional Tribunal immediately.
The jurisdictional Tribunal is directed to invest the said amount in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank or Grameena Bank subject to the result of the Judgment to be passed by Tribunal.
Office is directed to return the LCRs forthwith to the jurisdictional Tribunal.