Hanamant vs Shankar Kedaraba Koli and Others

P.D. Waingankar, J.—By judgment and award dated 3.9.2007, claim petition filed under section 166 of M.V. Act in MVC No. 1957/2003 came to be dismissed by I Addl. Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) and MACt, Belgaum. Therefore the claimants are before this Court.

On 8.9.2003, the original claimant Sri. Hanamant Gangappa Killedar was returning from coolie work. At that time, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-5/6569 belonging to one Shankar and insured by The New India Co. Ltd., came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. He sustained grievous injuries for which he was treated in Dr. Koppa hospital, Gokak. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- During the pendency of the claim petition, he died. His Legal representatives i.e., wife Shashikala and mother Nagawwa came on record to prosecute the claim petition contending that the injured claimant died on account of the injury sustained by him in the accident. The insurance company has taken up a contention that there had been no nexus between the death of the original claimant and the injury sustained by him in the accident. The claim petition came up for consideration before the tribunal. On behalf of the claimants, Smt. Nagawwa-the mother of the deceased was examined as PW1 and as many as 12 documents were marked. The tribunal on appreciation of evidence recorded a finding that there had been no nexus between the death and the injuries, which resulted in dismissal of the petition. Against the dismissal of the petition, this appeal is preferred.

I have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of original claimant and respondent insurance company.

The point that arise for my determination is under:--

"� Whether the legal representatives of the deceased claimant have a right to prosecute the claim petition when the death of the claimant during the pending of the claim petition?." 4. It is not in dispute that the original claimant Hanamanth died during the pendency of the claim petition. The case of the legal representatives of the original claimant who have come on record is that deceased claimant died on account of the very same injury sustained by him in the accident. Whereas it is the case of the insurance company that there had been no nexus between the death and the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. Ex-P8 and P9 are the wound certificates issued by Shantha Nursing Home, Gokak where the claimant was admitted and treated. These certificate would go to show that he had crush injury over occipito parietal region and contusion over left lumbar region. He was treated by Debridement , suturing was done, lumbar traction was given. He was admitted on 8.9.2003 the date of accident and discharged on 26.9.2003. No documents are forthcoming for he having taken further treatment after 26.9.2003. Ex-P3 is the death certificate, which reveals that the injured claimant died on 9.5.2005. In other words, he died after about one year and eight months from the date of his discharge from the hospital. The deadbody was not subjected to postmortem examination. There is no evidence he having taken treatment after his discharge from the hospital. As such, the tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that there had been no nexus between the injuries and the death of the injured claimant.

The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants would submit though the legal representatives of the deceased have failed to establish the nexus, they are entitled to get compensation under the head ''loss of estate''. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in Kannamma Vs. Deputy General Manager, , wherein it is held as under:--

"MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 (Central Act No. 4 of 1939) - Section 110A READ WITH INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 (Central Act No. 39 of 1925) -Section 306 - Legal Representatives: right to come on record and continue proceedings initiated by deceased claimant: Principles - If death not consequential to injuries sustained in accident cannot be prosecuted by Legal Representatives - If death due to accident Legal Representatives can prosecute petition only relating to loss of estate of deceased." 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance company would submit that in a claim petition for compensation due to personal injuries the legal representatives are not entitled to come on record and to continue the proceedings when the death of the claimant is not due to the injuries sustained in the accident.

The learned counsel for the insurance company has relied upon a decision of our High Court reported in Uttam Kumar (Deceased) Vs. Madhav and Another, , wherein it has been held as under:--

"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166-Rights of LRs-Claim petition for compensation due to personal injuries sustained in a motor accident-claimant dying during pendency of the proceedings-Legal representatives not entitled to come on record when death of claimant is not due to the injuries sustained in the accident.

A claim petition by the person sustaining bodily injuries in a motor accident, claiming compensation for personal injuries as also for compensation towards expenses, loss of income, etc., cannot, on such person''s death occurring not as a result or consequent of bodily injuries sustained from a motor accident, be prosecuted by his/her legal representatives.

A claim petition by a person who sustained bodily injuries in a motor accident, claiming compensation for personal injuries as also for compensation towards expenses, loss of income etc., can, on such person''s death occurring as a result or consequence of bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident, be prosecuted by his/her legal representatives only in so for as the claim for compensation in that claim petition relates to loss of estate of the deceased person due to bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident."

I have already held that the death of the deceased-claimant is not consequential to injuries sustained in the accident. In that event, in view of the ratio laid down in both the above decisions, legal representatives are not entitled to come on record to prosecute the claim petition in as much as not entitled to get compensation towards loss of estate. Appeal is benefit of merits. Hence, I pass the following order.

Appeal is dismissed.