AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second petitioner against the Award and Decree,
dated 16.10.2006, made in M.C.O.P. No. 258 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pantruti, awarding a
compensation of Rs. 59,568/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of
compensation.
Having not been satisfied with the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for additional
compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
The short facts of the case are as follows:
The first petitioner was working as a supervisor in Aziz Exchange Company in Dubai and earning a sum of Rs. 14,000/- per month. He came to
India in the month of June, 1999. He came to Bombay to get visa to go to Dubai, but was informed that he will get the visa only after a month. So,
he boarded the first respondent''s bus bearing registration No. KA01 C9990, at Bombay Datra bus stand on 02.01.2001, in order to go to
Bangalore. While the said bus was proceeding at P.V. Road (within Karnataka State) and had passed Shingatha Village, on 03.01.2001, at 4.30
p.m. the driver of the said bus drove the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a lorry, lost control of the bus
and dashed the bus subsequently on a road side tree. As a result of this the bus turned turtle. Due to this, the first petitioner sustained severe
injuries all over his body. As a result of injuries the petitioner was not able to move his legs and arms and the portion of his body below his chest
and also been paralysed. Due to this, the petitioner is unable to control his bowel movements and excretion of urine and he is bed-ridden. He spent
more than Rs. 2,00,000/- on medical expenses. As such, the petitioner had claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest and costs
from the respondents, who are the owner and the insurer of the said bus involved in the accident, u/s 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Subsequent to the filing of the petition, the first petitioner took treatment at Hospitals in Chennai, Cuddalore and Nellikuppam, but in spite of
treatment, the first petitioner succumbed to his injuries on 20.12.2002. The second and third petitioners, who are the wife and sister of the
deceased first petitioner have been added as necessary parties in the claim case as they are dependants of the first petitioner.
The second respondent, the Oriental Insurance Company Limitted, Pondicherry has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim
regarding the manner of the accident. It has been stated that there was a huge parcel (luggage) on the top of the bus and that the same had been hit
by the branches of a tree, while the bus was proceeding on the road. As a result of the impact, the bus driver lost his control of the bus. As such, it
has been submitted that the accident was not caused due to any fault on the part of the bus driver.
The second respondent has also not admitted the averments in the claim regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioners and has
stated that this should be proved through documentary evidence. It has also been submitted that the first respondent''s bus bearing registration No.
KA01 C9990 had not been insured with them at the time of accident. It was also submitted that the route permit of the bus, driving licence of the
driver of the first respondent and the registration documents should be produced by the petitioners to establish their case. The second respondent
has also denied the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the first petitioner.
It has been submitted that in the claim, it has been stated that the first petitioner came to India in the month of June, 1999 and arranged to get the
visa renewed in the second week of December, 2000, in Mumbai. The second respondent has pointed out that if the petitioner had worked as a
supervisor from 1973 in Dubai and it he had come to India on leave, then there was no necessity to get the visa renewed. It has been alleged that
on the date of accident, the first petitioner was not in service or employment under the alleged company at Dubai.
The second respondent has also submitted that the first petitioner had not died due to the injuries sustained in the accident as his death had
occurred only on 20.12.2002 i.e. after a period of two years from the date of accident ie.03.01.2001. The second respondent has also denied the
averments in the claim wherein it has been stated that the second and third petitioners had spent a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the medical expenses
of the first petitioner and Rs. 20,000/- for funeral expenses. It has also been submitted that the third petitioner being the sister of the deceased first
petitioner, is not dependant under the first petitioner as she is a married woman. It has been submitted that the claim is excessive and has to be
dismissed with costs.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely:
(i) Due to whose negligent had the accident occurred?
(ii) Is the petitioner entitled to receive compensation as prayed for? If so, who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner?
On the petitioners'' side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and 23 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P23. On the
respondents'' side no witness was examined and no documents were marked.
The second petitioner, PW1, in her evidence deposed that the first petitioner was her husband and the third petitioner''s brother; that he had
been working as a supervisor at Aziz Exchange at Harbus in Dubai for the past 20 years; that he came to India in the month of June, 1999; that
subsequent to his leave, he had gone to Mumbai in the month of December, 2000 to enquire about his visa to Dubai; that as he had been informed
by the authorities at Mumbai, that he would get his visa only after a month; that on the night of 02.01.2001, he had boarded a bus at Dathra bus
stand in Mumbai in order to go to Nellikuppam via Bangalore; that he had travelled in the first respondent''s bus i.e. National Travels bus bearing
registration No. KA01 C9990 in order to go to Bangalore; than when the said bus was proceeding on the P.V. Road, in Shingatha Village in
Karnathaka, on 03.01.2001 at 04.30 p.m. the bus driver had driven the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
a stationery lorry, thereby losing his control and subsequently dashing the bus against a road side tree; that she had claimed a compensation of Rs.
15,00,000/- from the respondents.
The eye witness of the accident, one Selva Kumar was examined as PW2. The PW2, in his evidence deposed that he knew the petitioners as
well as the deceased Zakir Hussain; that he had also travelled in the said bus in order to go to Nellikuppam; that on 02.01.2001 at about 4.30
p.m. he had boarded the said bus and was sitting on the seat behind the first petitioner; that on 03.01.2001 at about 08.30 a.m. in the morning,
when the bus was proceeding on P.V. Road in Shingatha Village in Karnataka State, the bus driver had driven the bus at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner; that on seeing a lorry coming on the opposite side of the same road, the driver of the bus, in order to avoid collision
with the said lorry, had swerved the bus to the left side of the road; that because the bus had a heavy luggage on top, the bus driver was not able
to control the bus; that due to this the bus had dashed against a road side tree and fell into a pit adjacent to the tree.
The Tribunal on scrutiny of the Ex.P2, the copy of the FIR, wherein it has been stated that the accident occurred on 03.01.2001 at 04.30 a.m.
while the bus was proceeding on the P.V. Road and that at this point of time the driver of the bus had driven the bus at a high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed the bus against a road side tree.
On scrutiny of Ex.P3, the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report of the said bus, it is seen that the accident had not occurred due to any
mechanical defects in the said bus.
The Tribunal, on scrutiny of the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and as well as documentary exhibits marked as P2 and P3 held that the
accident had been caused only by the negligent of the driver of the first respondent''s bus.
On scrutiny of Ex.P11, the copy of the Insurance Policy, it is seen that the said bus involved in the accident had been insured with the second
respondent at the time of accident. Further as no evidence or documentary evidence was let in by the respondents side, to prove their contention
that the said bus had not been covered under a valid policy of insurance and that the driver of the bus did not have a valid driving licence, the
Tribunal held that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the injured first petitioner.
The said accident happened on 03.01.2001 and the injured petitioner had filed the claim petition on 29.10.201. While the claim case was
pending before the Court, the injured petitioner died on 20.12.2002. Subsequently, the wife of the petitioner and the sister of the petitioner had
requested the Court to conduct the trial of the claim case and get them compensation.
On scrutiny of the Ex.P1, the FIR and the Medical Treatment Certificate listed as Exs.P7 to P13 and also on scrutiny of the copy of the photo
of the first petitioner marked as Exs.P14 and P15, it is evident that the first petitioner had sustained injury only due to the said accident. But, the
petitioners had not marked any documentary proof to establish that the first petitioner had died only due to the injuries caused in the said accident.
The petitioners had also not filed the post-mortem certificate of the deceased first petitioner. The Tribunal, on considering that the first petitioner
had died on 20.12.2002 i.e. after a period of two years from the date of the said accident and that even the post-mortem report of the deceased
and medical evidence had not been produced by the petitioners were not able to come to a decisive conclusion that the first petitioner had died
only due to the injuries caused in the said accident. The respondents had contended that the petitioners cannot claim compensation for the death of
the first petitioner and are only entitled to get reimbursement of medical expenses spent for the treatment of the first petitioner and in support of
their contentions had cited a Judgment in case law 2000 TLNJ 370 Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., Madurai v. S.
Rajalakshmi and Ors., wherein it had been ruled that:
In all the above decisions, the Division bench as well as supreme court had taken note of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act and have held
that claim for compensation in respect of personal injuries will not be available for the legal representatives provided the death was not caused as a
result of the accident. The supreme court has also pointed out that the position would be different if the suit for damages had resulted in a decree in
favour of the plaintiff in which case the decree amount would from part of the estate of the deceased to which the legal representatives would be
entitled to. But where no such decree has been passed the legal representatives of the claimant will not be entitled to compensation due towards
personal injuries are concerned.
Therefore, I have no other alternative except to allow the appeal in so far as the amount which has been awarded towards personal injuries. The
legal representatives of the claimants would be entitled only to be compensated as regards the actual expenses incurred by claimant for his
treatment.
The Tribunal on considering that the case law cited was relevant to the instant case and was in consonance with it held that the petitioners are
entitled to get compensation only for the medical expenses incurred by them for treatment of the first petitioner.
Accordingly, the Tribunal on scrutiny of Exs.P16, P17 and P18, the medical bills marked held that the petitioners are entitled to get a sum of
Rs. 59,568/- being the medical expenses incurred by them for treatment of the first petitioner.
Resultantly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 59,568/- as compensation to the petitioners and directed the second respondent to deposit the
above said award together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation,
into the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 258 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pantruti, within a period of one
month from the date of its Order. From and out of the award amount, the Tribunal apportioned Rs. 49,568/- to the second petitioner as her share
and apportioned Rs. 10,000/- to the third petitioner as her share. Further, after such deposit was made, the award was to be invested in a
nationalised bank, as fixed deposit, for a period of three years and the petitioners were permitted to receive interest on their apportioned share of
award, once in six months directly from the bank. The petitioners were directed to pay the Court fees due on the award amount. The Advocate
fees was fixed at Rs. 2,460/- and the second respondent was directed to pay the cost of Rs. 2,659/- to the petitioners.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/second petitioner has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal has allowed only the medical
expenses incurred for the treatment of the deceased and that the Tribunal had mistakenly held that post-mortem certificate was a necessary
document. It has been pointed out that the High Court had held on a number of times, that the post-mortem certificate was not an indispensable
document. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal had failed to note that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 14,000/- per month. It was also
contended that the Tribunal should have accepted the disability certificate marked as Ex.P8, which indicated 100% disability of the deceased first
petitioner and that he was being treated till his death. As such, it was pointed out that the Tribunal should have accepted this fact of treatment and
granted relief for the death of the deceased by applying the multiplier theory.
It has been pointed out that the appellant is taking steps to get the pay particulars of her husband from his employer at Dubai. It was also
contended that the Tribunal should have granted at least Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant under the head of loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- under
the head of transport expenses. As such, it has been prayed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant to allow the appeal and grant an
additional compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the appellant.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, in support of his contentions has cited the following Judgments made in Pallavan Transport
Corporation Vs. Saroj Goyal and Others, , the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Negligence - Corporation bus came on to wrong side of its road and dashed against a motorcyclist who succumbed to his injuries - Defence that
motorcyclist suddenly crossed the road from left to right - Driver of bus deposed that motorcyclist while overtaking another motor cycle came to
the right side of his road and dashed against the front left side bumper of the bus despite the fact that he had halted the bus - Driver''s version is not
in consonance with the stand taken in the written statement - Corporation failed to produced M.V.I.''s certificate from where it could have been
seen whether there was any impact or damage on left front bumper of the bus - Eyewitness corroborated claimants'' version and he denied that
deceased while overtaking other vehicles came to the right side of his road and dashed against the bus - Road was wide enough to drive 3 buses at
a time - No case of the Corporation that there is any adjacent street in the north to say that the deceased suddenly took a right turn to enter the
northern side - Neither the claimants nor the Corporation have summoned police records, FIR, sketch, outcome of police investigation; thus the
only evidence available to adjudicate about negligence is the deposition of the eyewitness and the bus driver - Evidence of eyewitness is more
probable and acceptable - Tribunal held that the bus driver was rash and negligent in causing the accident - Tribunal''s finding upheld in appeal.
2009 (1) TN MAC 465 High Court of Madras, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. v. N. Meenal and Ors., the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Accident took place on 8.9.1994 and deceased died on 23.2.1995 - Whether death due to injuries sustained in accident or due to other reasons?
- Non-conducting of post-mortem examination - Effect.
Medical evidence, oral and documentary, establishing that deceased suffered complications in kidney as an exposure of fracture in femur neck,
swelling in kidney, germs generation in kidney causing high blood pressure and due to high B.P. Cerebral haemorrhage causing death - Non-
conducting of post-mortem therefore would not shatter medical evidence particularly in absence of contra-medical evidence on side of Appellant -
Would show that deceased die due to injuries sustained in accident.
Compensation - Quantum - Deceased being aged 41 years a clerk in bank, Tribunal fixing Rs. 7,360 as income as per salary certificate and after
deducting 1/3 applying multiplier of 15 and awarding Rs. 8,83,260 towards pecuniary Loss, and Total Compensation at Rs. 9,24,435, held,
proper.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166(1), 168 & 173 - Appeal against award of compensation by Insurer - Accident took place on 8.9.1994,
but injure died on 2.3.1995 - Contention that Deceased not died on account of injuries sustained in Road Accident but due to other reasons -
Stand of claimants that death was due to compilation which occurred aftermath the accident and that death is attributable to bad consequences of
injuries sustained by deceased - Evidence of Doctor/P.W.2, who treated deceased, that deceased''s right knee damaged and was suffering from
pain in right kidney region and that deceased was affected by Pyonephrosis and due to cerebral haemorrhage he died - P.W.2 in his chief-
examination said that due to accident deceased''s right side kidney got swelled, germs found in kidney and germs generation caused high blood
pressure and hence his kidney could not be removed and due to high B.P. Cerebral haemorrhage occurred and deceased died - Medical
Certificate issued by P.W.2 would show that deceased was treated for fracture in neck of femur (rt.) and his right kidney damaged and he had
intermittent pain in right kidney area and that high blood pressure caused cerebral haemorrhage - In Discharge Summary - Ex.P.6 through it is not
directly referable to kidney complication, it stated that in right hip joint, swelling, tenderness and pain movements were found - Since there was
swelling in right hip joint it may be discerned that no only it is exposure of fracture inside but also other inflammations in internal organs in right hip
region - Therefore, in a nutshell it can be stated that even at time of accident his right knee got affected and was not specifically diagnosed but
complication subsisted - Concentration seems to have been made on fracture neck of femur (rt.) - Another Medical Certificate available in Ex.P.6
shows that from 10.9.1994 to 10.01.1995 injured was advised to take sick leave as he had undergone hemiarthroplasty - For injuries suffered on
8.9.1994 deceased died on 23.02.1995 and no post-mortem examination conducted on deceased, hence it is responsibility of Court to go deep
into matter and find out whether death was caused by injuries sustained in accident for ends of justice - Close connection between medical
evidence as found in oral testimony of P.W.2 and entries available in Ex.P6 - Evidence of P.W.2 not rebutted by Appellant and no steps taken in
that regard - Case bereft of medical evidence on side of Insurer/Appellant - When medical evidence established that deceased suffered
complications in kidney and cerebral haemorrhage occurred, which was outcome of kidney swelling and generation of germs by means of high
Blood Pressure, even though no post-mortem was conducted, it would not shatter strength of medical evidence - Absence of contra-medical
evidence would probabilise claimant''s version - Nothing on record to brush aside evidence of P.W.2 which is natural, convincing and satisfactory
- Therefore, held, although death is not end product of accident directly it is resultant of accident - No infirmity either factual or legal found in
award passed by Tribunal.
Motor Accident Claim - Compensation - Quantum - Determination - Fatal Accident - Deceased : Aged 41 years, a clerk in bank earning Rs.
7,360 p.m. - Injuries : Accident took place on 8.9.1994 in which deceased suffered injuries in right knee and hip joint : Swelling in kidney and
germs generations found : High Blood pressure causing cerebral haemorrhage due to which deceased died on 23.2.1995 - Claim : Rs. 15,76,250
- Claimants : Wife and minor children - Award of Tribunal : Rs. 9,25,425 - Appeal against - Loss of Dependency/Pecuniary Loss : Taking
monthly income at Rs. 7,360 p.m. as per Salary Certificate and after deducting 1/3rd towards Personal Expenses, annual Dependency arrived at
Rs. 58,884 : Applying multiplier of 15 Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,83,260 - Medical Expenses : Rs. 26,175.50 - Loss of Consortium : Rs. 10,000 -
Funeral Expenses : Rs. 5,000 - Total Compensation : Rs. 9,24,435 awarded by Tribunal, held, proper - Interest : 9% p.a.
State of Haryana and Others Vs. Sukhpal and Others, , the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 110A [Section 166(1) of 1988 Act] - Claim application - Fatal accident - Death of injured after 1 year and 7
months of the accident - Deceased suffered fracture of spine and became paraplegic with 100 per cent disablement - Deceased remained
hospitalised for about a year and died after 7 months of discharge - Contention that as the death occurred after 7 months of his discharge from the
hospital, injured died a natural death - No evidence that deceased suffered any other injury or ailment like heart disease or stroke - Whether the
Tribunal was justified in concluding that death occurred due to injuries sustained by the deceased in accident and awarding compensation to the
claimants accordingly - Held: yes; a gap of about 7 months does not suggest that he died a natural death.
N.R. Patel and Co. and Others Vs. Smt. T. Aparna and Others, , the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Negligence - Contributory negligence - Accident while overtaking - Car at high speed while overtaking a lorry came on to the wrong side of the
road and dashed against a jeep coming from opposite direction - Jeep went off the road, turned turtle and jeep driver and other passengers in the
jeep sustained injuries - Defence that it was a head-on collision and jeep driver was also negligent - Eyewitness who was a passenger in jeep
corroborated claimants'' version and no evidence in rebuttal - Police after investigation filed a report that there was no rash and negligent driving of
car and accident occurred due to tyre burst - Case registered against jeep driver on the behest of father of car owner was closed - Tribunal held
that car driver was rash and negligent and solely responsible for the accident - Tribunal''s finding upheld in appeal.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 173, 149 and 170 - Motor insurance - Appeal - Defences available to insurance company - Owner of
vehicle was ex parte - Insurance company did not seek permission from the Tribunal u/s 170 - Whether insurance company gets right to defend
the claim on the grounds beyond Section 149(2) when the owner is ex parte - Held: No.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166(1) - Claim application - Maintainability of - Injured sustained injuries in accident, became unconscious
and remained in coma for 4 = years and never regained consciousness till his death - Claim was filed by father of injured as guardian when the
injured was in coma - Whether widow and children can prosecute the claim after death of the deceased - Held : Yes; evidence that death of
injured was due to injuries sustained by him in accident.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 163A, 165 and 166(1) - Claim application - Maintainability of - Whether the claimant has to prove with
cogent, plausible and reasonable evidence that the injuries sustained were because of accident due to use of motor vehicle for claiming
compensation - Held: yes.
Succession Act, 1925, Section 306 - Actio personalis moritur cum persona - Abatement - Whether the claim of the injured for the injuries
sustained by him abates after his death - Held: yes; but the claim relating to estate of the deceased survives to his legal representatives.
Quantum - Fatal accident - Deceased aged 30, an industrialist, earning Rs. 10,000 p.m. - Claimants: widow and children - Deceased income tax
assessee and his returns show progressive profits - Deceased sustained brain injuries became unconscious, went into coma and never regained
consciousness till his death after 4 = years of the accident - Injured remained under treatment in many hospitals for about 3 years and expenses of
Rs. 5,93,689 have been incurred on medical care, treatment and nursing - Expenses incurred are borne out by oral and documentary evidence
vouchsafed by hospital authorities - Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,93,689 for medical expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.
10,14,000 for loss of income - Award of Rs. 17,10,000 upheld.
2007 (2) TN MAC 374 High Court of Madras, Jothi and Anr. v. Viruthasarani and Ors. the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 168 & 163 - Appeal against award of Tribunal - Deceased, who suffered injuries in accident originally filed
Claim Petition for Compensation of Rs. 1,10,000 - Deceased succumbed to injuries pending Claim Petition - Claimants, after their impleadment as
wife, son & daughter claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 - Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,00,000 as against Claim of Rs. 3,00,000 -
Appellants/Owner and Insurer of offending vehicle contended that deceased not died on account of injuries he suffered in accident, but with his ill-
fate by some other means - And, that claimants bound to establish cause of death - Accident took place on 26.10.1993 and death took place on
12.04.1995 after 18 months - After death, dead body not subjected to autopsy....
B. Imtiaz Ahanied Vs. G. Banumathi and Another, , the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 and Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 27 - Appeal - Additional evidence in appeal - Claim
for injuries - Documents to prove agony the claimant is undergoing everyday and nature of treatment - Documents could not be produced in trial
court - Whether documents be permitted to be produced on record - Held: yes.
Quantum - Injury - Leg, hip and abdomen - Fracture in leg below knee resulting in shortening of leg by 2"" - Fracture near left side of hip and hip
movement has been considerably reduced - Steel rod of cycle seat on which the injured was riding penetrated his stomach, urethra in urinary
bladder was cut to the extent of 2 cm. - Injured has lost the entire urology system and despite operations and skin-grafting he has no control over
urination and he has to insert a tube in his penis every day to take out urine - In one of the operations, temporary system was also formulated for
taking out urine as blood was coming out of urinary tube - Injured aged 19 has suffered disability of 15 percent in hip movement, 40 per cent in
respect of left leg and 25 per cent in urology system - Injured cannot do any work in his life and he cannot have a marital life - Skin-grafting has left
a scar of 16 cm. On left side of his thigh - Injured has yet to undergo another surgery to implant some equipment and without that equipment he
cannot pass urine in normal course - Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,00,000 - Appellate court allowed Rs. 2,00,000 for permanent disability, Rs.
1,00,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 3,00,000 for loss of future prospects and loss of marital relationship, Rs. 2,50,000 towards medical expenses,
Rs. 10,000 for nutritious food and Rs. 5,00,000 for implantation, surgery and fixation of artificial urinary sphincter - Award of Rs. 5,00,000
enhanced in appeal to Rs. 13,60,000.
Quantum - Interest - Tribunal allowed interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of petition till date of deposit - Appellate court reduced rate
to 9 per cent.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Virendra Singh (deceased) through L.Rs., the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 173, 149(2) and 170 - Motor insurance - Appeal - Defences available to insurance company - Insurance
company had obtained permission of the Tribunal u/s 170 to contest the claim on all grounds - Whether appeal by insurance company challenging
the quantum of compensation is maintainable - Held : yes.
Quantum - Injury - Paraplegia - Dislocation of C6-C7 vertebra with total paraplegia of both lower limbs and anterior dislocation with quadriplegia,
urinary incontinence retention with overflow - Injured aged 48, Radio Operator in Police Department, drawing Rs. 6,500 p.m. sufferd 100 per
cent disability and his life became wheelchair life - He was confined to bed and joined his duty after 2 years and 7 months but could do nothing
because of his total incapacity to attend to his day-to-day needs - Injured succumbed to injuries after 4 years and 10 months of the accident -
Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs. 1,02,630 towards medical expenses, Rs. 20,000 towards transport, special diet and
miscellaneous expenses and Rs. 6,05,000 towards loss of earning capacity - Appellate court assessed Rs. 1,50,000 towards pain and suffering,
Rs. 2,00,000 for medical and other expenses, Rs. 1,95,300 for loss of income and Rs. 2,00,000 towards loss of amenities and shortening of life -
Award of Rs. 7,47,630 upheld.
2006 (1) TN MAC 569 High Court of Madras, M.T.C. Ltd. v. Tajuneesa and Ors. the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 173 & 168 - Appeal against award of Tribunal - Accident took place in 1997 - Deceased die in 2001 -
Contention that Tribunal erred in its conclusion that deceased die on account of accident - Evidence of Doctor-P.W.2, who treated deceased, that
deceased would have died on account of injury which became septic and resulted in his death ultimately in 2001 - Therefore, contention does not
merit consideration, rejected - No reason to interfere with award of Tribunal.
H.S. Chetan (since deceased by his LRs. Leelavathi @ Leelamma and K. Sadashivaiah) Vs. Chandra Moull and National Insurance Co. Ltd., ,
the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166(1) - Claim application - Abatement - Doctrine of ''actio personali moritur cum persona'' - Applicability of
- Claimant suffered injuries in accident, slipped into coma and remained as such till his demise after 3 years and 10 months - Claim application filed
by him through his mother, he died during its pendency and his parents were substituted as legal representatives - Evidence that death was result of
injuries sustained in accident and not due to any other cause - Whether doctrine of ''actio personalis moritur cum persona'' is applicable and claim
application abates - Held: no; right to sue would accrue to the claimants to maintain claim application seeking compensation for loss of
dependency, reimbursement of expenses incurred on treatment, loss to the estate and under other conventional heads.
The Managing Director, Pandiyan Roadways Corporation, Madurai Vs. S. Rajalakshmi and four others, , the relevant head notes of which are as
follows:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 and 173 - Accident Claims Compensation for personal injuries - Injured die after filing claim petition -
Legal Representatives are brought on record before Tribunal - Death of injured was not on account of accident - Legal Representatives claimants
would be entitled only to be compensated as regards actual expenses incurred by claimant for treatment.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Devilal and Others, , the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 110-C [Section 169 of 1988 Act] and Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 74 and 77-Claims Tribunal - Procedure
and powers - Public document - Whether post-mortem report, inquest report and panchnama could be accepted as documents admissible in
evidence without examining the persons who prepared them - held: yes; strictly speaking provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable before the
Tribunal; if a document is a certified copy of a public document it need not be proved by calling a witness or the person who prepared it.
The learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent vehemently argued that the petitioner''s husband had not died due to the said accident.
After the accident, he has recovered physically. The accident happened on 03.01.2001, but the injured person died only on 20.12.2002 i.e. after
about a period of two years. As such, the appeal is not maintainable. The Tribunal award and decree passed is sustainable under law. The learned
Counsel appearing for the third respondent further vehemently argued that there is ''lacuna'' in the legal formalities i.e. there is no doctor evidence
stating that the injured person died only due to the injuries sustained in the accident also no post-mortem certificate was produced. In the absence
of essential evidence, the appellant is not entitled to claim compensation against the respondents.
The learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent further argued that the injured person himself had filed the claim petition originally. It
proves that after the accident, his physical condition had been normal. After having been in such good physical condition, he had died on
20.12.2002. As such, the first petitioner might have died only due to some other health problems and not due to injuries sustained in the said
accident. The learned Counsel supporting his contentions has cited the following Judgment made in Shantaben Ambalal Sutaria and Others Vs.
Valjibhai Harjibhai Patel and Others, , the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 110-A [Section 166(1) of 1988 Act] - Claim application - Nexus between accidental injuries and death -
Deceased had suffered multiple fractures in the accident and expired 7 days thereafter - Claimants specifically pleaded that death of the deceased
was caused due to the accidental injuries sustained by him and these facts were not denied by the opponents in their pleadings - Medical evidence
establishes that development of fat embolism is a known complication in case of multiple fractures especially involving long bones and that the
probable cause of death of the deceased was fat embolism - Deceased survived for seven days after the accident but remained under medical
treatment - Deceased, a healthy man, was not suffering from any other ailment or disease which could terminate his life abruptly - Tribunal found
that the claimants failed to establish conclusively the cause of death and disallowed the claim for loss to the estate - Tribunal''s finding reversed in
appeal and it was held that the deceased had died because of the development of fat embolism which was the direct result of accidental injuries.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal and after hearing arguments advanced by the learned
Counsel appearing on either side, citations cited by the respective learned Counsels, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to get
compensation for the below mentioned reasons:
As per medical record and mode of treatment, duration of period during which time he was bedridden, this Court considers that the injury
sustained by him in the accident was grievous.
The appellant is an illiterate lady, and is a Villager and a ''Pardha'' wearing lady and has very limited interaction with other members of society.
Considering the above said two aspects in the instant case, the Court condones the non production of post-mortem certificate and the non-
examination of Doctor.
The intention of the injured first petitioner was to go to Dubai for employment seeking personal gain for which he had gone to Bombay and tried
to procure visa. It is only when he was returning back to Bangalore that the accident had happened. After the accident, if his health had become
normal, as alleged by the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent, he would have gone back to Dubai and joined duty in the earlier
place. Ex.P12 is the scan report taken on 11.10.2001. On 12.08.2002 another X''ray had been taken as per Ex.P13 and on scrutiny of Ex.P17, it
is seen that the injured had purchased medicines on 06.01.2002. Considering these medical documents, the Court is of the view that the injured
had been taking continuous treatment even after one year from the accident.
It cannot be said with authority that a person should dies immediately after the accident to establish that he died only due to injuries caused in the
said accident. Death due to an injury caused in an accident can be immediate or happen after a prolonged treatment depending on the physical
condition and nature of injuries sustained by the injured person.
In the said accident, the first petitioner sustained injuries on his head and chest and has been paralysed below his hip. In the result, the injured
has had no control over his bowel movements and passing of urine. The other injuries were sustained on his neck and spinal cord. As these are all
grievous in nature, the Court considering that these grievous injuries could result in death at a later stage holds that the first petitioner died only due
to the injuries caused in the said accident.
Accordingly, this Court on considering that no salary proof had been let in on the petitioner''s side fixes the notional income of the deceased
first petitioner as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Deducting 1/3rd of this for his personal expenses, the Court computes his annual contribution to his family
as Rs. 36,000/-. Adopting a multiplier of 12, relevant to the age of the first petitioner, the Court assesses the loss of income to the second
petitioner as Rs. 36,000/- X 12 = Rs. 4,32,000/- and grants this amount as compensation to the second petitioner under the head of loss of
income. The Court also grants an award of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the second petitioner under the head of loss of consortium. This
Court grants an award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation under the head of transport expenses. This Court grants an award of Rs. 10,000/- as
compensation under the head of funeral expenses. In total, this Court awards an additional compensation of Rs. 4,67,000/- to the appellant
together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.
Therefore, this Court hereby directs the third respondent to deposit the additional compensation amount granted by this Court with accrued
interest, as observed above, into the M.C.O.P. No. 258 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pantruti, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire additional compensation amount with accrued interest
thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 258 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pantruti, after filing
necessary payment out application, in accordance with law.
In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 16.10.2006, made in M.C.O.P. No.
258 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pantruti, is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.