IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal in MFA No.20040/2011 is by the Insurance Company challenging the liability to pay a total sum of Rs.4,76,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit to the claimants who are the children of the deceased Basappa N.Pujar as per the Judgment and Award dated 27.10.2010 passed in MVC NO.2366/2006 on the file of the Addl. MACT, Saundatti (for short, the 'Tribunal'). The only ground canvassed in support of the appeal by the Insurance Company is that, even according to the claimants, the deceased Basappa N.Pujar, the original claimant, met with an accident on 12.04.2006 and suffered fracture with dislocation left femur and hip joint and lacerated wounds, but he died on 02.06.2007, i.e. after about one year and two months from the date of the accident. The demise of Basappa N.Pujar is not because of the injuries suffered in the accident, and therefore, no compensation can be paid. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,76,400/- on the ground that the doctor's evidence (evidence of P.W.5) establishes nexus between the injuries suffered by Basappa N.Pujar and his demise and the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to disbelieve the doctor's evidence. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company relies upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Uttam Kumar Vs Madhav and another, 2002 ILR(Kar) 1864.

(2.) The learned counsel for the claimants, who have filed cross objections in MFA Crob.No.778/2013 seeking enhancement of compensation, supports the impugned judgment asserting that the defense set up by the Insurance Company is that the deceased Basappa N.Pujar did not die because of the injuries suffered in the accident, as such, Insurance Company had to discharge the burden. But, the Insurance Company has failed to discharge such burden, and the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no infirmity with the Judgment or the award of the Tribunal.

(3.) In view of the rival submission, the question that arises for consideration is, Whether the Tribunal is justified, in allowing the petition in MVC No.2366/2007, which is continued after the demise of the original claimant, Basappa N.Pujar. The Full Bench decision of this Court has categorically held thus: