- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38461 MFA No. 5366 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5366/2013(MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, NO. 32, BALAJI SOVEREIGN, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025, BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDINGS, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600 002, BY IT’S MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M GAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O MUNIRATHNAM, 2. SARVANA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O M GAJENDRA, 3. PRABHAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, W/O SANTHOSH, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38461 MFA No. 5366 of 2013 LR'S OF DECEASED SMT. KANTHA @ KANTHAMMAL, W/O M GAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, (DIED ON 20/07/2011) ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 3, BIOCON, HOSUR MAIN ROAD HEBBAGODI, BANGALORE-560 099. 4. G KRISHNA, MAJOR, R/AT NO. 41/42, MUTHACHARI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NAYANDANAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 039. (EX-PARTE BEFORE TRIBUNAL) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, R4 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.658/2011 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND 35TH ACMM, MACT,BANGALORE.AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,28,364/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38461 MFA No. 5366 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 20.03.2013 passed in MVC No.658/2011, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore (SCCH-16)(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) for quantum of compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of both learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, one Kanthamma met with a road traffic accident on 26.12.2010 and sustained multiple injuries all over her body. She later succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident and died on 20.07.2011. Initially, a claim petition had been filed seeking compensation for injuries sustained in the accident. After her death, her legal representatives namely, her husband and children were brought on record. Consequently, the nature of the claim was converted into a claim for compensation due to death, the petitioners - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38461 MFA No. 5366 of 2013 sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.5,28,364/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the order, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 4. It is contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Although it is stated the accident occurred on 26.12.2010, the deceased died on 20.07.2011. However, the petitioner has failed to establish a nexus between the injuries and death. As such, the claim of the legal representatives is not maintainable. Moreover, the evidence of PW.2 is not much held to establish the cause of death. 5. As per the discharge summary marked as Ex.PW.7, it was stated that the deceased was stable and healthy at the time of discharge. No postmortem was conducted after her death on 20.07.2011 at the ESI hospital. Her statement was recorded earlier on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38461 MFA No. 5366 of 2013 15.06.2011, wherein she did not report any further complications. It is also noted that her son and daughter are majors and were not dependent on her. Therefore, the appellant has requested to set-aside the award. 6. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased met with an accident on 26.12.2010 and subsequently died on 20.07.2011 i.e., after a lapse of 206 days. It is argued that there is no nexus between the accident and her death. 7. PW.2, the Orthopedic surgeon, examined the patient and diagnosed her with the following injuries: i. Head injury with fracture of right femur, fracture of right humerus and right forearm bones. ii. He has further deposed that the nature of injury and the proposed surgery including the need complication was explained to the patient and his attenders, she was under care of a team of doctors. Once she was stabilized, she was operated for the fractures for the femur with an interlocking nail, plate and screws for the humerus, LCP with JESS for the forearm bones and skin grafting was done. She was in ICU on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38461 MFA No. 5366 of 2013 ventilator and later weaned off from the ventilator. He has further deposed that she was discharged on request on 07.04.2011 with an advice of OPD follow-up, during the course she started deteriorating, she was advised re-admission for the medical management, the attended were not willing. He has further deposed that during the course, they came to know that the patient was expired. He opined that the cause of death might be due to complication developed due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that, as per the medical report, the patient was discharged from the hospital due to financial difficulties. It was further submitted that the medical records of the patient were not included in the case sheet, there is no mention that she was discharged against the advice of the doctor and the other OPD records were not produced. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that initially she filed original petition(OP) for claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by Kanthamma on 31.01.2011. However, she died after six months later i.e., - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38461 MFA No. 5366 of 2013 on 20.07.2011. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no nexus between the accident and death cannot be accepted. 10. The Tribunal also observed that merely because the postmortem was not conducted and the postmortem report was not filed, it cannot be concluded that there is no nexus between the accident and death. 11. It was specifically mentioned that the deceased's health condition was deteriorating, considering her age, the nature of injuries sustained and the requirement for hospitalization. Though she had undergone treatment and was advised to be re-admitted for further medical management, her attendants were not willing to re-admission. It was observed that cause of death might have been complications arising from the injuries sustained in the accident, especially when the doctor had clearly stated that she died due to those injuries sustained in the accident. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38461 MFA No. 5366 of 2013 12. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,28,364/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 13. Therefore, this Court finds that there are no merits in the appeal. 14. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed, with a specific direction to the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.5,28,364/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ii. On such deposit, respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38461 MFA No. 5366 of 2013 iii. The amount, if any, deposited before this Court shall be transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36