IMPORTANT POINT
Establishing a direct causal link between injuries from an accident and subsequent death is essential for compensation claims in motor vehicle accidents.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge at Gajuwaka (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.493 of 2015 dated 04.02.2019.

2. The appellants, who are wife, son, and daughter of Gopisetty Sriramulu (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively, are the claimants before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are owner and insurer of Yamaha FZ-16 Motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 BV 5518 (hereinafter referred to as “crime motorcycle”).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 22.03.2013 at about 10.00 p.m., while the deceased crossing the road near track at Nathayyapalem Junction, NH-16 Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, the crime motorcycle driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn, dashed against the deceased, resulted, the deceased received head injury. On that he was shifted to R.K. Hospital, Gajuwaka, in-turn referred to K.G.H., Visakhapatnam for better treatment, then shifted to St. Joseph Hospital, therefrom shifted to Simhadri Hospital at Visakhapatnam, and again shifted to St. Joseph Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where he succumbed on 04.10.2014.

ii). Being dependents, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.18,30,000/- against the driver-cum- owner and insurer of the crime motorcycle.

5. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was not due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, it is only due to the negligence of the deceased and that the crime motorcycle is insured with the 2nd respondent, thereby, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the death of the deceased was not due to the alleged injuries sustained by him on 22.03.2013; that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation as there is no survival of cause of action long after healing of the alleged personal injuries sustained by the deceased, thereby, there is no nexus for the injuries and death of the deceased on 04.10.2014; that the crime motor cycle was not validly insured with this respondent by the time of accident and thereby, prays to dismiss the petition.

7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1.Whether the deceased Gopisetty Sriramulu, S/o.Appalanarasayya died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 22.03.2013 at about 10.00 p.m. at Nathayyapalem Junction, NH-16 Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 BV 5518 Yamaha driven by its driver?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent?

3.What was the age and income of the deceased at the time of accident? and

4.To what relief?”

8. During enquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.16 and X.1 to X.4 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, the legal officer of 2nd respondent examined as R.W.1, however, no documentary evidence was adduced.

9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased died after long time due to the injuries sustained in the incident dated 22.03.2023, held that the claimant are not entitled for any compensation, thus, dismissed the petition without costs.

10. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants.

11. Heard Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri M.S.Bhanu Prasada Rao, learned counsel representing Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer.

12. Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that fr