Chandranna v. Sathish

e -e1e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:45212 MFA(No.(5592(of(2022 CNR:(KAHC010356392022 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(20 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(RAJESH(RAI(K( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.5592(OF(2022(MV-I) BETWEEN:( , CHANDRANNA, S/O.,LATE,BAIYANNA,@,DODDABAIYANNA,, AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS,, COOLIE,,R/O.,B.,G.,KERE,VILLAGE,, MOLAKALMURU,TALUK-577,535,, CHITRADURGA,DISTRICT., …APPELLANT, (BY,SRI.,VIJAYAKUMAR,S.C,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., SATHISH, S/O.,RAMEGOWDA,, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS,,Digitallytisigned by0PANKAJA0S R/O.,RAJAGATTA,BYE-PASS,ROAD,, Location:0HIGH HASSAN-573,201., COURT0OF KARNATAKA

2., THE,BRANCH,MANAGER, THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,CO.,LTD.,, VIJAYASHREE,,DAVANAGERE,ROAD,, CHITRADURGA-577,501., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,G.S.,MARULAIAH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,, ,,,,,,R1,-,SERVED,,UNREPRESENTED), , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST,THE, JUDGMENT,AND,AWARD,DATED,,28.01.2022,PASSED,IN,MVC, NO.546/2019,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,ITINERARY,SENIOR,CIVIL,

JUDGE AND MACT, MOLAKALMURU, REJECTING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.01.2022 passed in MVC No.546/2019 by the Court of Itinerary Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Molakalmuru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal by rejecting the claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs.54,629/- towards medical expenses spent by the claimant.

¶2The brief facts of the case are, on 27.01.2026 at 10:00 p.m., the deceased in this case one Baiyanna @ Doddabaiyanna while sleeping on the side of the platform at ESSAR Petrol bunk, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-C-1257, while moving in a reverse direction in a rash and negligent manner, ran over him. As a result, he sustained injuries and he was treated at Govt. Hospital, Molakalmuru and then to SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere, as inpatient. Later, on

24.02.2016 he succumbed due to accidental injuries.

Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the claimant-appellant in the year 2019 i.e., after lapse of 3 years claiming compensation for the death of deceased.

¶3The Tribunal, upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence, rejected the claim petition by holding that there was no nexus for the death of deceased and accident in question. However, the Tribunal has granted the medical expenses as stated supra. The said judgment is challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

¶4Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶5The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant is that the deceased was died within one month from the date of accident i.e., on 24.02.2016 solely due to the injuries he sustained in the accident. However, due to lack of legal knowledge, the appellant had failed to file a claim petition immediately after the death of deceased. As such, he submits that the finding of the Tribunal that there was no nexus between the death and the accident is not sustainable.

Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by awarding compensation for the death of deceased.

¶6Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the claim petition is not maintainable either on facts or on law, since the same is filed after lapse of three years from the date of death of deceased. According to him, absolutely there is no evidence or materials placed on record to substantiate that the death was caused due to the accident and absolutely there is no nexus between the death and accident. He also contended that since no inquest or autopsy is conducted, the cause of death is not revealed. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition.

¶7I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and other documents made available before this Court.

¶8As could be gathered from records, the accident in question was occurred on 27.01.2016. Thereafter, Baiyanna

(deceased), after taking first aid treatment at Govt. Hospital, Molakalmuru, and higher treatment at SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere, discharged from the Hospital and after 27 days, he died due to the accidental injuries. Admittedly, the autopsy was not conducted and after three months from the date of death, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the lorry. In such circumstances, it is clear that the cause of death is not due to the accidental injuries. Moreover, the deceased was aged about 70 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal, considering the said aspect, awarded a sum of Rs.54,629/- towards medical expenses spent by the claimant. Admittedly, the claim petition was not filed at the time of death of deceased. The claimant has not produced any documents to assert that the deceased was died due to accidental injuries. In such circumstances, considering the fact that the deceased was 70 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there is no nexus between the death and the accident.

¶9However, the medical record reveals that the deceased was an inpatient for a period of 10 days in SSIMS

Hospital, as such, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'attendant charges'.

¶10The sum of Rs.54,629/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'medical expenses', being based on documentary evidence, affirmed.

¶11Thus, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.64,629/- as against Rs.54,629/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶12The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14