AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.—The Insurance Company is the Appellant. The insurer questions death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in this accident and also quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal.
As the matter now stands there is no dispute about the deceased, who was aged 19 years, sustaining injuries on 19-06-2001 in motor vehicle accident in which TATA Sumo bearing No. TNO1J 9810 hit the deceased. PW-2, who is one of the eye witnesses to the accident, speaks to the manner of accident and also proves that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the said Tata Sumo vehicle.
In the accident, as per Ex.A4 wound certificate, the deceased sustained fracture of right clavicle and also other multiple injuries. Undoubtedly, fracture of right clavicle is a grievous injury. After taking treatment in Government Hospital, Chittoor, the deceased was shifted to CMC, Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu State, where he took treatment from 21-06-2001 to 28-06-2001 for fracture of right clavicle. FW-3, who is the doctor in Vellore Hospital speaks to the said fact and marked Ex.A5, certificate issued by Registrar of Ortho Unit I, CMC Hospital, Vellore. Subsequently, the Petitioner was shifted to his house in CM Kandriga village. The deceased died on 17-07-2001 at his native village. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed claim petition before the lower Tribunal i.e., Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Prl. District Judge, Chittoor, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,15,000/- for death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,91,700/- to the Respondents 1 and 2 for death of the deceased because of the injuries sustained in this accident.
The Appellant/insurance company, which obtained permission in the lower Tribunal u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contends that death of the deceased was not due to injuries sustained in the motor accident and that there is no proof that the death occurred because of injury to his right clavicle.
As per Ex.A4 wound certificate, the deceased was having two injuries, namely, swelling restricting movements and painful of right hand and tenderness over right clavicle. X-ray of right clavicle showed fracture of right collar bone. Thus the deceased was having only one grievous injury and the second injury is a simple injury related to the first injury. P.W.I, father of the deceased in his affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief stated that after the deceased sustained injuries and after his treatment in CMC Hospital, Vellore, he was not able to attend to his duties and was forced and compelled to stay in the house and that after undergoing treatment, he died on 17-07-2001 in his house at the village and that on account of the said accident and on account of injuries sustained by the deceased, they were deprived of income to his family. He did not state and in fact, he is not a competent to state whether death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. After death of the deceased, which is evidenced by Ex.A3 death certificate, there is no post-mortem examination conducted on dead body of the deceased to prove cause of his death. PW-3 also did not speak anything about death of the deceased much less cause resulting in his death. According to PW-3 in cross-examination, the deceased will not have any permanent disability because of fracture of right clavicle for which he was treated in CMC Hospital, Vellore. In the absence of proof of cause of death and in the absence of proof of nexus between injuries sustained in the accident and death of the deceased about 28 days thereafter, it cannot be said that the deceased died because of injuries sustained by him in the accident. In the accident, he did not sustain any injuries to any vital parts to his body but he sustained only fractures to right clavicle bone.
It is contended by the counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that no suggestion was even given to PW-1 or PW-3 to the effect that death of the deceased was not due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. In the absence of any evidence to that effect either by PW-1 or by PW-3, the question of giving any suggestion to those witnesses will not arise at all.
Unless it is a case of spot death, the claimants, who are dependents on the deceased should prove, primary burden being on them, by medical evidence that death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by him in the road accident. Without there being post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased by competent Medical Officer and post-mortem report reporting the death due to injuries sustained in the accident, this Court is of the opinion that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot jump to any conclusion that death occurred due to injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident, simply on the basis of some conjectures or surmises.
Having regard to my finding that death of the deceased in this case was not due to injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, though the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled for compensation for death of the deceased, they being parents of the deceased, who inherited his estate, they are entitled for compensation for the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. As pointed out earlier, the deceased sustained one grievous injury by way of fracture and one simple injury. Towards general damages for the said injuries, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 1,000/- totaling Rs. 16,000/-. Apart from that the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards transport charges from Chittoor to Vellore and back. Further they are entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses for the attendant and Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses for treatment of the injuries. Thus, total compensation amount comes to Rs. 41,000/-.
In the result, the appeal is allowed partly reducing compensation amount awarded by the lower Tribunal from Rs. 1,91,700/- to Rs. 41,000/-. No costs.