- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010180402013 NC: 2026:KHC:42033 MFA No. 2790 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2790 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: LAKSHMIDEVI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE SEETHARAM RAO K OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 818, 13TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 086. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V N MADHAVA REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI K.V. VIJAY KUMAR S/O K.V. VEERABHADRAIAH, RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-06-Q-5470, R/O. "DEVASADANA", 2ND MAIN ROAD, BASAVESHWAR EXTENSION, KYATHASANDRA, TUMKUR-572 104. 2. K. VEERABHADRAIAH S/O LATE S. RUDRAPPA, DEVASADANA, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BASAVESHWAR EXTENSION, KYATHASANDRA TUMKUR-572 104 DEAD SHALL BE REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR K.V. VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010180402013 NC: 2026:KHC:42033 MFA No. 2790 of 2013 RESPONDENT NO.1 3. U.I.I.CO. LTD 1ST FLOOR, JAYADEVA COMPLEX, P.B. NO. 54, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR-572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3, V/O DTD: 29.10.2015 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 3.11.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.9085/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 31.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 3.11.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in MVC No.9085 of 2008. 2. Injured claimant Seetharam Rao K., met with an accident on 28.12.2005 and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to Prestine Hospital on 05.01.2006 and discharged and re-admitted in the same hospital on 07.01.2006 at 12.30 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010180402013 NC: 2026:KHC:42033 MFA No. 2790 of 2013 p.m. and shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital on 24.01.2006. Later, on 31.01.2006, Seetharam Rao K died. He was aged 79 years, working as retired reader in Chemistry and he was a retired Principal of the Government College, Chitradurga. After the death of Seetharam Rao K., his wife filed claim petition claiming compensation. Tribunal considered the entire evidence on the record and granted an amount of Rs.2,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and respondent No.3- insurance company was directed to deposit the said amount. 3. Aggrieved by the said amount, the claimant-petitioner preferred this appeal and mainly contended that doctor issued death certificate under Exhibit P18 and he died during the course of treatment. He denied the suggestion that whatever the complications the injured developed were because of his old age and not because of the accidental injuries. He further stated that on 31.01.2006, the injured Seetharam Rao K expired and the immediate cause of death was septicaemia with multi organ disfunction like actual renal failure and respiratory failure. But, the post mortem report was not filed to show that he died due to the injury sustained in the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010180402013 NC: 2026:KHC:42033 MFA No. 2790 of 2013 accident. Considering the said fact, the tribunal held that petitioner failed to prove that death caused due to the injury sustained in the accident and the said order of the tribunal is to be set aside and requested for enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. It was stated that petitioner examined herself as PW1 and also examined doctor as PW2 and another doctor as PW3. There is no counter evidence from respondent No.3, who simply filed copy of policy. The accident occurred on 28.12.2005 and Seetharam Rao K died on 31.01.2006, i.e. nearly after 1 month 3 days. 6. The petitioner met with an accident on 28.12.2005 and his son Dr. Uday Kumar filed complaint before Rajajinagar Traffic Police Station on 30.12.2005 at 01.05 p.m. Basing on the same, Police filed charge sheet against respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under sections on 279 and 338 of IPC. The second complaint was given by Uday Kumar on 10.04.2006 under Exhibit P7. It is observed by the Tribunal that as son of - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010180402013 NC: 2026:KHC:42033 MFA No. 2790 of 2013 PW1 is a qualified doctor, why he has not conducted post mortem, when his father died on 31.01.2006 and why he kept quite till 10.04.2006. This clearly shows that he has not died due to any injuries sustained in the accident. 7. It is submitted by the petitioner that their family is orthodox family and as such, he did not want to subject the Seetharam Rao K/deceased for post mortem. The injuries sustained by him as per wound certificate reads as follows.: “1. Abrasion over both upper limb and right lower limb. 2. Multiple lacerated wounds over left upper and lower limbs, forehead and ou lower lip bleeding present. 3. Haematoma over forehead, swelling and bleeding over nose, both eyes red in colour. The CT scan of the brain revealed anterior base scull injury cerebral contusion, fracture of left lateral wall of orbit and fracture of both nasal bones.” 8. Therefore, the learned counsel for insurance company contended that there is no evidence to show that RTA injuries led to the septicaemia with multi organ disfunction like actual renal failure and respiratory failure. PW2 stated - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010180402013 NC: 2026:KHC:42033 MFA No. 2790 of 2013 that Seetharam Rao K/deceased might have developed the said complications due to the old age and medications. He was aged 79 years at the time of accident and he was given innumerable drugs. When the things went out of reach, hospital authorities discharged Seetharam Rao K and sent him to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. Therefore, the Tribunal held that petitioner failed to prove that there was nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident and the death, which caused after more than one month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, Seetharam Rao K was provided with continuous treatment and medication was also given to him. He died while taking treatment within a span of one month three days after the accident. 9. No doubt, Seetharam Rao K was aged 79 years at the time of the accident. He was admitted in the hospital and given more medication and it led to septicaemia, acute renal failure and respiratory failure, and his old age also added to the cause of death. Therefore, it cannot be said that he died only because of the old age ailments and not due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010180402013 NC: 2026:KHC:42033 MFA No. 2790 of 2013 facts properly and held that there was no nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and death on the ground that no post mortem report was filed. The said finding of the tribunal is not acceptable and is liable to be set aside. 10. Seetharama Rao was a retired Principal of Government College and getting a pension of Rs.6,300/- per month. He was aged 79 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, he is not entitled for future prospects. But, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards his personal expenses as he is married and having children. Thus, loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,52,000/- (6,300 x 12 x 5 -1/3). The petitioner is the wife of Seetharam Rao K/deceased and she is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium as per citation reported in (2018) 18 Sec 130 in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram, and she is also entitled for Rs.30,000/- under the conventional Heads as per citation reported in (2017) 16 Sec 680 in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Prany Sethi. The Tribunal has granted Rs.2,15,000/- towards medical expenses and this court confirms the said amount. In all, the claimants - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010180402013 NC: 2026:KHC:42033 MFA No. 2790 of 2013 are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,37,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.2,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 2,52,000/- 2. Loss of Consortium 40,000/- 3. Towards conventional heads 30,000/- 4. Medical expenses 2,15,000/- Total 5,37,000/- 12. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.5,37,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) The respondent insurance company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the enhanced - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010180402013 NC: 2026:KHC:42033 MFA No. 2790 of 2013 amount of Rs.3,22,000/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the Claimant is permitted to withdraw entire amount along with interest accrued on it. (v) I.A.1/2013 is filed for the condonation of delay of 415 days, delay condoned without interest vide order dated 23.01.2017 claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73