The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented Through Its Divisional Office, Maruti Galli, Belgaum by Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Mrs. Dundavva and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(prayer: tq and dist: bagalkot. ... respondents this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of the m.v. act, 1988, praying to set aside the award dated 5.9.2012 made in mvc.534/2010 by the mact-ii, bagalkot, and etc.) 1. though this matter is listed for consideration of the application for condonation of delay, i have nevertheless heard the learned counsel for appellant on merits. 2. the insurance company has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and award of the tribunal (mact- ii), bagalkot, dated 5.9.12 passed in mvc.534/2010 on the question of liability. 3. the relevant facts of the case are that, on 20.09.2009, one laxman arakeri was proceeding on his bicycle on jamkhandi-mudhol road, when at that time, a maxicab bearing reg.no.ka.29/a.1902 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against laxman. as a result he sustained injuries. he died on 30.03.2010. he was 46 years of age at the time of his death and was eking his livelihood as coolie. contending that they had lost the bread-earner of the family his legal representatives filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of his death. the claim petition was contested by the insurance company. 4. in support of their case, the claimants let-in the evidence of pw.1- wife of the deceased and two doctors as pws.2 and 3. they produced 12 documents which were marked as ex.p.1 to p.12, while the officer of insurance company let-in evidence of pw.1. on the basis of the said evidence, the tribunal awarded compensation of rs.3,53,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation and directed the insurance company to satisfy the award. 5. being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurance company is in appeal. 6. i have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. it is contended that the death of laxman had no nexus to the injuries sustained in the accident. that the accident occurred on 20.9.2009, but the injured laxman died on 30.3.2010. there has been no postmortem conducted so as to link the death to the injuries sustained in the accident. therefore, the tribunal could not have granted compensation on the premise that laxman died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. he, therefore, submitted that the tribunal was not right in awarding compensation as if it was a fatal accident. 8. having heard the learned counsel for appellant and on perusal of the material on record as well as the certified copy of the evidence and documents produced before the tribunal, which have been submitted by the counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 20.09.2009 and laxman died on 30.3.2010. the injuries sustained by laxman as per ex.p.5- wound certificate are, left intra trochanteric fracture. the injured laxman was admitted to a private hospital where he underwent surgery and there were implants fixed to the left femur. he was admitted to the hospital on 20.9.2009 and he was discharged on 12.10.2009. he was admitted once again on 4.12.2009 with infected intertrocantric fracture of left femur with implant insitu for which wound debridment was done on 5.12.2009 and he was on antibiotic and was discharged on 10.12.2009. the summary sheet at ex.p.12 states that he was on follow up treatment till 2.3.2010. in fact, it will be useful to extract the summary sheet which reads as follows: "this is to certify that shri laxman arakeri, age: 46 years, r/o. shirol, tq. mudhol had met with rta on 20.9.2009 and he was admitted and got treated at shri sai orthopaedic hospital, mudhol for his fracture of left femur and discharged on 12.10.2009. later he was admitted in my hospital on 4.12.2009 and he had infected intertrocantric fracture of left femur with implant insitu for which wound debridment was done on 5.12.2009 and appropriate antibiotic was given and he was discharged on 10.12.2009 and patient was taking regular follow-up treatment till 2.3.2010." therefore, the fact that laxman was on continuous treatment from 20.09.2009 upto 2.3.2010 is established. he died on 30.3.2010. though no postmortem report has been produced to show the reason of death, the summary sheet clearly establishes the fact that the fracture of left femur got infected and wound debridment was done on 5.12.2009 and that continuation of treatment was on till 2.3.2010. merely because no postmortem is done, it cannot be held that there is no nexus between the accidental injuries and death as the continuity of treatment of the injuries sustained in the accident has been established. the fact remains that there was infection of the fracture which possibly had led to the inevitable death of laxman. the tribunal on the basis of documents on record, therefore, rightly held that the death was on account of the accidental injuries and has accordingly awarded compensation of rs.3,53,000/- on the following heads:1.loss of dependencyrs.3,12,000/-2.loss of love and affection (rs.3000/- each x 9)rs. 10,000/-3.transportation of dead body and funeral expenses etc.rs. 6,000/-4.medical expensesrs. 20,000/-5.loss of consortiumrs. 5,000/-totalrs.3,53,000/-  the said award of compensation is also reasonable. therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. the appeal is dismissed. the amount in deposit to be transmitted to the tribunal.

Judgment:

(Prayer: Tq and Dist: Bagalkot. ... Respondents This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988, praying to set aside the award dated 5.9.2012 made in MVC.534/2010 by the MACT-II, Bagalkot, and etc.)

1. Though this matter is listed for consideration of the application for condonation of delay, I have nevertheless heard the learned Counsel for appellant on merits.

2. The Insurance Company has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and award of the Tribunal (MACT- II), Bagalkot, dated 5.9.12 passed in MVC.534/2010 on the question of liability.

3. The relevant facts of the case are that, on 20.09.2009, one Laxman Arakeri was proceeding on his bicycle on Jamkhandi-Mudhol road, when at that time, a maxicab bearing Reg.No.KA.29/A.1902 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Laxman. As a result he sustained injuries. He died on 30.03.2010. He was 46 years of age at the time of his death and was eking his livelihood as coolie. Contending that they had lost the bread-earner of the family his legal representatives filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of his death. The claim petition was contested by the insurance company.

4. In support of their case, the claimants let-in the evidence of PW.1- wife of the deceased and two doctors as PWs.2 and 3. They produced 12 documents which were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.12, while the Officer of Insurance Company let-in evidence of PW.1. On the basis of the said evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,53,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation and directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award.

5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Insurance Company is in appeal.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.

7. It is contended that the death of Laxman had no nexus to the injuries sustained in the accident. That the accident occurred on 20.9.2009, but the injured Laxman died on 30.3.2010. There has been no postmortem conducted so as to link the death to the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have granted compensation on the premise that Laxman died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal was not right in awarding compensation as if it was a fatal accident.

8. Having heard the learned Counsel for appellant and on perusal of the material on record as well as the certified copy of the evidence and documents produced before the Tribunal, which have been submitted by the Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 20.09.2009 and Laxman died on 30.3.2010. The injuries sustained by Laxman as per Ex.P.5- wound certificate are, Left Intra Trochanteric Fracture. The injured Laxman was admitted to a private hospital where he underwent surgery and there were implants fixed to the left femur. He was admitted to the hospital on 20.9.2009 and he was discharged on 12.10.2009. He was admitted once again on 4.12.2009 with Infected Intertrocantric Fracture of Left Femur with implant insitu for which wound debridment was done on 5.12.2009 and he was on antibiotic and was discharged on 10.12.2009. The summary sheet at Ex.P.12 states that he was on follow up treatment till 2.3.2010. In fact, it will be useful to extract the summary sheet which reads as follows:

"This is to certify that Shri Laxman Arakeri, Age: 46 years, R/o. Shirol, Tq. Mudhol had met with RTA on 20.9.2009 and He was admitted and got treated at Shri Sai Orthopaedic hospital, Mudhol for his Fracture of Left Femur and discharged on 12.10.2009. Later He was admitted in my hospital on 4.12.2009 and he had Infected Intertrocantric Fracture of Left Femur with implant insitu for which wound debridment was done on 5.12.2009 and appropriate antibiotic was given and he was discharged on 10.12.2009 and Patient was taking Regular follow-up treatment till 2.3.2010." Therefore, the fact that Laxman was on continuous treatment from 20.09.2009 upto 2.3.2010 is established. He died on 30.3.2010. Though no postmortem report has been produced to show the reason of death, the summary sheet clearly establishes the fact that the fracture of Left Femur got infected and wound debridment was done on 5.12.2009 and that continuation of treatment was on till 2.3.2010. Merely because no postmortem is done, it cannot be held that there is no nexus between the accidental injuries and death as the continuity of treatment of the injuries sustained in the accident has been established. The fact remains that there was infection of the Fracture which possibly had led to the inevitable death of Laxman. The Tribunal on the basis of documents on record, therefore, rightly held that the death was on account of the accidental injuries and has accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.3,53,000/- on the following heads:

1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.3,12,000/-
2.	Loss of love and affection (Rs.3000/- each x 9)	Rs. 10,000/-
3.	Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses etc.	Rs. 6,000/-
4.	Medical expenses	Rs. 20,000/-
5.	Loss of consortium	Rs. 5,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs.3,53,000/-

The said award of compensation is also reasonable. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal.