Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs R.Santhi on 4 September, 2012
Author: P.Devadass
Bench: P.Devadass
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.09.2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DEVADASS
C.M.A. No.2623 of 2005 and
C.M.P.No.13674 of 2005
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd,
45, Moore Street,
Chennai. ..Appellant
Vs.
1. R.Santhi
2. S.Lokesh
3. Minor Priya
(Minor R3 rep. By mother
and NF 1st respondent R.Santhi)
4. T.V.Krishnakumar
..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.398 of 2002 dated 08.07.2004 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court No.IV), Poonamallee.
For Appellant :: Mr.Kabirdoss for
Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan
For Respondents :: Mr.Sathishrajan
1-3
Respondent No.4 :: Ex-parte
J U D G M E N T
The New India Assurance Company, challenging its liability under the award, had directed this appeal.
2. For the death of 1st respondent's husband, the Claims Tribunal had awarded the claimants totally Rs.2,36,250/-.
3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company did not dispute the determination of quantum of compensation, but disputes the very basis of grant of compensation viz., death of deceased in a road accident.
4. Mr.Kabirdoss, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased was already a known diabetic and an heart patient. He himself walked to the hospital. There was no post-mortem. There was huge delay in lodging the F.I.R. The evidence of R.W.1 shows that the deceased did not die due to the injury sustained in a road accident.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Sathisrajan, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that a close reading of the evidence of R.W.1 itself would show that the deceased had died due to the head injury sustained in the road accident. The FIR as well as admission of his guilt by the Driver before the Magistrate's Court would also show that the deceased had sustained mortal wound in the road incident.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both sides, perused the evidence on record and gone through the impugned Judgment of the Tribunal.
7. On 18.07.2001, at about 6.30 a.m., when 1st respondent's husband Sankaran was walking on the Sreedevi Kuppam road in Valasaravakkam, the TATA Van, belonging to the 4th respondent, insured with the appellant, came driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him. Sankaran sustained injury; on the next day, he died. The driver of offending vehicle was charge sheeted by the police for having driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, he had admitted his offence before the Court, he was convicted and sentenced. Besides this there is evidence of P.W.2 Srinivasan, an independent witness, who had testified as to the manner of accident. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has correctly concluded that the road accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
8. The next important point is whether the deceased sustained any injury, if so, whether he died of injury.
9. The contents of Ex.P.1-FIR would reveal that Sankaran on that day, sustained head injury. The evidence of P.W.2 also supports this. A reading of evidence of R.W.1 Dr.Srinivasan shows that Sankaran was already a diabetic and an heart patient. It is not that the deceased in a road accident should not have any prior ailments. In a road, persons with all sorts of ailments are also expected. Of course, there was about one month delay in lodging the FIR. There is explanation for this delay in the FIR itself. Immediately, after knowing the death of Sankaran, his relative Devamani, after giving an undertaking letter, took the dead body, without conducting Post-mortem. Thereafter only the F.I.R. was given. It is a fact that there is a tendency among us to avoid subjecting of the dead body of our dear and near one to post-mortem. It may be one such case. But, merely on account of not conducting post-mortem, we cannot jump to the conclusion that his death was not due to the road accident injury. It can be decided based on other relevant materials produced before the Court.
10. In Ex.P.1 F.I.R. there is mention about Sankaran having sustained head injury in a road accident. So also is the evidence of P.W.2. From the evidence of R.W.1, we can see that Sankaran was found with head injury at the time of his admission in the hospital. Ex.P.4 discharge summary also contains information to that effect. It is clearly stated that his death was also due to the head injury. Of course, in Ex.P.4 and in the evidence of R.W.1, it is stated that Sankaran himself came walking and got admitted in the hospital. Sometimes persons sustaining head injury may not loss their consciousness immediately. Sometimes, at the initial stage, inspite of the head injury, a person might be able to walk and the complications may develop later. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The evidence on record clearly shows that the deceased died due to the head injury sustained by him in the road accident.
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. The appellant shall deposit the entire compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. The claimants shall be paid their share of compensation amounts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.09.2012 rg Internet:Yes Index: Yes To Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court No.IV), Poonamallee.
P.DEVADASS.J., rg C.M.A. No.2623 of 2005 04.09.2012