SMT. KAVITHA AND OTHERS Vs. FAKKIRAPPA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals respectively by the claimants and the insurer are directed against the same judgment and award dated 25.09.2011 passed in M.V.C. No. 414/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -X, Bellary. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award awarded a sum of Rs. 8,11,000/ -with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, on account of the death of Lokappa @ Lokesh in the road traffic accident. On the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate and it requires enhancement, claimants have presented M.F.A. No. 21165/2012. Whereas the insurer filed M.F.A. No. 20320/2012 contending that the quantum of compensation awarded is a bit on the higher side and the directions issued by the Tribunal to indemnify the award cannot be sustainable on the ground that there is no nexus between the occurrence of accident and the death.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the claimants are that, the claimant No. 1 is the wife and the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children of deceased Lokappa @ Lokesh. They have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 47,00,000/ - on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 16.07.2010 when the deceased alongwith his family members Honnamma, Anjinamma and Ramappa was proceeding to Bellary to Duggathi village in a bus bearing reg. No. KA -44/1904 as passengers. At about 1.30 p.m. when the said bus reached near Addalumori, Kuditini, Bellary Taluk, a bus bearing reg. No. KA -35/3825 came from the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus to its right side, as a result, Lokappa, who was sitting by the side of the window sustained grievous fracture injuries to his right hand, chest, abdomen and head. Immediately he was taken to VIMS Hospital, Bellary. On the advise of the Doctor, he was shifted to Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore, later he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bangalore and again he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. Inspite of all sincere efforts, the claimants could not save the deceased. The deceased succumbed due to the injuries on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged 27 years and the children were aged about 10 years and 6 years respectively at the time of accident. They have lost the love, affection and guidance of the deceased throughout their career and it has affected their social and economic condition. Due to the untimely death of the deceased the claimants are made to suffer socially ad financially. Any compensation amount cannot compensate the loss caused due to the death of their family member. Therefore, the claimants have filed a claim petition claiming compensation. The matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after critical evaluation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/ - per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs. 5,76,000/ - towards loss of dependency, Rs. 1,90,000/ - towards medical expenses and Rs. 45,000/ - towards conventional heads and allowed the claim petition in part. In all, it awarded a sum of Rs. 8,11,000/ - with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants and the insurer felt necessitated to present these appeals redressing their grievance as referred above.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, Sri S.K. Kayakamath, at the outset vehemently submitted that Tribunal has erred in holding that the death was caused due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. To substantiate his contention, he has taken us through the hospital summary at Ex.P.9 series where it is shown that the deceased was alcoholic by nature and was suffering from jaundice and also suffering from low blood count and there is no substance that the deceased has succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. He submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there is nexus between the nature of injuries sustained and the death, cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. Hence, the direction issued by the Tribunal to the insurer to indemnify the award cannot be sustained. Further, he submitted that, substantial amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record and interference by this Court is not called for.