AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Ex. P4 (death certificate) is sufficient to show that claimant died as a consequence of injuries sustained in the motor accident that occurred on 18.04.2005. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the claimants failed to prove that the injured Gangadharaiah died as a consequence of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on 18.04/2005.
We have perused the LCR
The injured Gangadharaiah was working as Assistant Teacher in Siddaganga Rural High School, Siddaganga Mutt, Tumkur. He sustained injuries in the motor accident that occurred on 18.04.2005 at about 9.00 a.m. when he was travelling in Autorickshaw due to rash and negligent driving by the Autorickshaw driver. According to Ex. P3 Wound Certificate, the injured sustained fracture of left femur, fracture shaft of lower 1/3rd of right tibia and fibula. The claimant was treated as an inpatient in Shridevi Hospital at Tumkur till 19.05.2005. The injured filed a claim petition on 01.06.2005 against owner and insurer of the Autorickshaw claiming compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs. The injured claimant died on 02.10.2005. Hence, wife and daughter of the deceased were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased claimant. Wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1 besides examining one Raju as PW-2 and Dr. B.S. Shivaprakash as PW-3. They have got marked copy of the FIR, death certificate, service book, ration card, endorsement issued by BEO office, etc., as Exs.P1 to P11. In rebuttal, one C. Gangadharaiah and Thippeswamy were examined as RW-1 and RW-2, The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence placed on record came to a conclusion that the injured Gangadharaiah died due to the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on 18.04.2005 and therefore answered Issue No. 1 on the point of negligence in the affirmative. But while answering issue No. 2 on the point of question of compensation, answered in the negative holding that the claimants failed to prove that the injured died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. There is a conflicting finding. Hence, we proceed to find out as to whether the death of the injured-claimant is as a consequence of injuries sustained by him in the accident. The legal representatives of the deceased claimant have not produced any document to establish that on account of the injuries sustained by the injured, he died, Claimant had sustained fracture of left femur (vide Ex. P3). The injury is not sufficient to cause death. Since the legal representatives of claimants failed to prove the cause of death of the claimant, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim petition. We see no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. In the result, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed No costs.