NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. GOWRIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Armugam, aged about 65 years sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 26.05.2001 while riding Kinetic Honda, to which another vehicle - Kinetic Honda No. KA-G3-ED/9577 belonging to respondent dashed. After taking the treatment for the accidental injuries, Armugam died on 9.9.2001. His wife and son filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer i.e., the appellant. Insurer filed statement of objections opposing the claim petition, inter alia contending that, there is no nexus between the death of Armugam and the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the issuance of policy and its validity as on the date of accident were not disputed. Based on the material pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. 2nd petitioner deposed as PW. 1. Dr. Rajesh Gangavatiker, who treated Sri Armugam deposed as PW. 2 and one Thanappa, an employee of the Nimhans hospital deposed as PW. 3. Exs. P1 to P11 were marked. For respondents no evidence was led. Considering the rival contentions and appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has held that deceased Armugam sustained injuries in the accident by use of a motor vehicle. It considered the claim insofar as the amount spent towards medical expenses and incidental charges and hence, allowed the claim to an extent of Rs. 65,000/- with costs and interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record.

(3.) Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for appellant contended that, the cause of death was not proved either by producing P.M. report or by examining the doctor who treated the deceased to substantiate the cause and Tribunal having held that there is no nexus for the injuries and the death, has erred in awarding Rs. 65,000/- towards medical expenses and incidental charges. He further contended that, the claim being contrary to the position of law declared by this Court in ILR 1990 Karnataka 4300 and ILR 2002 Karnataka 1864, the impugned award calls for interference.