Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

C. Error by the MACT in considering the claim as death claim

25. On a careful perusal of the record, we find that the application of the deceased original claimant before the MACT dated 10 June 2014 describes the accident, its details as also the nature of injuries sustained by the applicant. Pertinent it is to note that considering the nature of injuries, described as cervical 16 FA-154-2022.doc cord injuries (#of C3C5) resulting in quadriplegia. |Such application and/or the contents thereof are not disputed by the appellant. It is also not disputed that the deceased original claimant expired on 17 January 2017 in Jaipur where she resided as she did not recover from her treatment in Kokilaben Hospital at Mumbai, from where she discharged on 29 June 2012. The death certificate as noted by us above refers to the cause of death as septicemia, as a consequence of traumatic quadriplegia as set out in the death certificate issued by the Metro Multiplicity Hospital at Jaipur by Dr. Sondeo Bansal i.e. AW-5 which is again uncontroverted by the appellant. Despite such clear material on record, the appellant has chosen to take a hyper technical plea on the ground that the MACT erred in considering the claim as death claim. In this regard it is apposite to refer to the provisions of Sectioin 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, more specifically Section 166(C) which reads thus:-

We may observe that the evidence of AW-5 who has been elaborately cross examined in detail on behalf of the appellant has gone uncontroverted and remains unassailed. Thus the contents of such testimony are duly proved against the appellant. It is clear to us that Dr. Sondeo categorically suggests that the deceased died because of ailment existing prior to the accident i.e. hypothyroidism causing bradycardia leading to the eventual death of the deceased original claimant. We have also perused the death certificate issued by AW-5 i.e. Dr. Sondeo Bansal, the treating doctor of the deceased original claimant. Such certificate is issued by the Metro Multispeciality Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan. A careful perusal of the death certificate would indicate the immediate cause to be septicemia and antecedent cause which gives rise to the immediate cause is stated to be traumatic quadriplegia.

23 FA-154-2022.doc Such death certificate is issued by the same doctor i.e. AW-5 whose evidence is uncontroverted and is also not disputed, much less controverted by the appellant. Thus, we do not find substance in the submission of Mr. Kanojia that there is no nexus between the injury and death of the deceased original claimant in the given facts and circumstances.

28. Testing the above on the basis of the findings recorded by the MACT in the impugned judgment we have carefully perused the same (paragraph 24 to 30) on such issue. We find that the MACT has correctly recorded the sequence of events i.e. right from her being taken to the Kokilaben Hospital after the accident to her demise in Metro Hospital Jaipur on 17 January 2017 where she passed away under complete and continuous treatment since the date of the accident. The MACT has rightly appreciated that AW-1 i.e. the father of the deceased original claimant has deposed that due to accident injuries the deceased was completely paralyzed and bedridden, which despite cross-examination by the appellant, remained unshaken. Such evidence is corroborated by the unassailed testimony/evidence of AW-5 i.e. Dr. Sondeo Bansal. This is further corroborated by the death certificate issued by the same doctor stating the reason for death as traumatic quadriplegia which is directly connected to the injuries suffered by the deceased original claimant, as stated by him in his evidence which completes the chain.

32. In the given facts and circumstances we may also note that under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, one need not ordinarily go behind the evidence of an expert witness like that of a doctor/hospital in the given facts and circumstances. The connection between the injuries suffered by the deceased original claimant, which stand out clear from the discharge certificate issued by the Kokilaben Hospital dated 29 June 2012 is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Bansal and the death certificate issued by him and the cause of death have not just a remote but a proximate connection. For such reasons, we do not find any infirmity much less irregularity and/or illegality in the findings arrived at in the impugned order on this issue which, in the given facts and circumstances stand duly proved against the appellant and in favour of the respondents.