AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Satyanarayana, J.
Respondent No. 3 in MVC No. 2311/12006 on the file of MACT, Shimoga has come up in this appeal impugning the quantum of compensation awarded in the aforesaid proceedings for the death of original claimant A. Nagaraja s/o late Siddappa for the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident dated 18.03.2002 involving lorry bearing No. MYS-7155 belonging to 1st respondent before the tribunal and insured with 3rd respondent in the said proceedings.
The aforesaid accident is not in dispute so also the injuries suffered by the claimant i.e., fracture of left frontal bone and other head injuries suffered in the accident by original claimant A. Nagaraja who was aged about 45 years at the relevant point of time and said to be a bar bender by profession. The medical records would disclose that immediately after the accident, he was taken to McGann Hospital, Shimoga and thereafter, he was admitted to Kasturba Medical College Hospital, Manipal and he was an inpatient in the said hospital for about 15 days. During the said period, the injuries suffered by the claimant to his head was treated and thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital.
Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the original claimant late A. Nagaraja submit that subsequently, since the injuries suffered to the head of the deceased was not cured, he went for follow up treatment in the month of May 2002 and thereafter, in the month of January 2003 i.e., on 3.1.2003, he died due to the injuries suffered in the aforesaid accident. It is also stated that in the meanwhile he had filed a petition in MVC 2311/2006 seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the aforesaid accident wherein it was stated that he incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and that, he being a resident of Shimoga, while staying in Manipal for treatment in KMC Hospital along with an attendant, he had spent huge amount for food and stay of both himself and the attendant. Hence, he filed a petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 8.00 lakhs.
It is seen that subsequently death has taken place during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings. In the Court below, an application was filed to bring the widow of original claimant and his two children on record as the legal representatives and the said legal representatives proceeded to contest the case as if the original claimant has died due to the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident dated 18.3.2002.
In the said proceedings, the legal representatives of the original claimant adduced evidence through the first legal representative Jalajakshi as PW1 and they also examined the Head of the Department of KMC, Neuro-surgery Department as CW1 on commission. In the said proceedings, the contesting respondents i.e, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle adduced evidence and the tribunal accepting the contentions of the legal representatives of original claimant i.e., death is caused due to the injuries suffered in the accident, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,57,467/- payable with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment fixing the liability on the 3rd respondent to deposit the amount.
Being aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent - insurance company has come up in appeal challenging the quantum on the ground that the accident is not disputed by them, injuries suffered by the original claimant after the accident is not disputed but, what is disputed is the finding of the tribunal that the original claimant died on 3.1.2003 due to the injuries attributable to the accident which has taken place on 18.3.2002 and it was also contended that the evidence of CW1 - Dr. Raja would not support the case of the legal representatives of the original claimant and it would support the claim of the insurance company to demonstrate that there is no nexus between the cause of death of the original claimant and the injuries suffered by him in the road traffic accident dated 18.3.2002.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and contesting respondents i.e., lrs of original claimant. Perused the judgment impugned along with LCR and also the grounds of appeal.
On going through the same, it is seen that the accident is not in dispute, injuries suffered by the claimant is not in dispute which resulted in the original claimant being an inmate of KMC Hospital, Manipal for a period of 15 days during which period, he was treated by the doctor of Neuro-surgery department of KMC Hospital in connection with the injuries suffered to the original claimant and it is also seen that the doctors in KMC Hospital had advised the original claimant that he shall continue to take certain medicines prescribed at the time of his discharge until further opinion of the doctor. It is also on record that subsequently, in the month of May 2002, the patient has gone back to the hospital where he took treatment with complaint of headache, discomfort, memory loss and various other things. Subsequently, there is nothing on record to show that the original claimant was not fully cured of the injuries he had suffered in the accident. The medical records available on record would clearly indicate that there is nothing to substantiate that the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident dated 18.3.2002 would be the cause for the death of the original claimant A. Nagaraja. At best, it could have led to permanent discomfort as far as headache, memory loss and various other things are concerned. But, there is nothing on record to show that it could be the cause for his death. In fact, CW1 - Dr. Raja in his cross-examination would admit that he could not authoritatively say that the cause of the death of the original claimant A. Nagaraja is due to the injuries suffered in the said accident, he would say that the best evidence could have been the post mortem report. In the absence of positive, assertive evidence of Dr. Raja - CW1 in stating that the death of A. Nagaraja could not be attributable to the injuries caused in the road traffic accident on 18.3.2002, the finding of the tribunal in accepting his death as accidental death is erroneous. Consequently, the compensation awarded taking the death of A. Nagaraja as accidental death is also erroneous. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the tribunal requires to be set-aside and compensation payable to claimant should be assessed afresh on the basis of material available on record.
Now coming to the evidence available on record, at the time of filing the petition, the claimant has stated that he has incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- while he was an inpatient in KMC Hospital. Though he has produced bills only to the tune of Rs. 15,467/-, the fact that serious injuries had been caused to the head of the original claimant A. Nagaraja which resulted in his treatment for about 15 days in the KMC Hospital and there is opinion of the doctor on record that he was required to take medicines continuously until further advise by the doctor, this Court can safely assess the medical expenses in a sum of atleast Rs. 30,000-35,000/- as spent, also for the reasons given by the counsel that since, some of the bills were not found at the time of leading evidence, only available bills are produced and marked in evidence, cannot be disputed.
It cannot be further disputed that during the period when he was an inpatient in KMC Hospital, some family member as attendant would be present for taking care of the original claimant and expenses incurred for their stay, food and other miscellaneous expenses has to be assessed.
The fact that from the date of the accident till the date of death the original claimant was under medication for the head injury which he suffered in the accident being pleaded, he would have spent substantial amount.
Taking all these factors into consideration, the medical and other expenses which the family would have incurred over a period of one year cannot be less than Rs. 60,000/ to Rs. 70,000/- and this Court assesses the same at Rs. 75,000/-.
Learned counsel for the insurance company also fairly concede that, that may be the maximum the family would have spent.
In that view of the matter, while setting-aside the judgment and award of the tribunal in awarding compensation to the claimants in a sum of Rs. 3,57,467/-, global compensation of Rs. 75,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till date of deposit of entire amount would be the considerable and acceptable alternative compensation which the learned counsel Sri A M Venkatesh, appearing for the appellant fairly concede and accept as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed modifying the compensation payable and assessing at Rs. 75,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Since, the insurance company has already deposited certain amount, the compensation now arrived at is ordered to be released in favour of respondent No. 1 - Smt. Jalajakshi, who would have spent the aforesaid money for the treatment of her husband and balance amount, if any, is ordered to be released in favour of the appellant/insurance company.