The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation based on the nexus between the accident and the claimant's demise, irrespective of the claimant's financial dependency, and the application of legal principles to justify the award of additional compensation and the scaling down of interest.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Netravalkar for the appellant-insurance company and Mr. Mulgaonkar learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Mr. Prasheen Lotlikar and Ms. Rupa Banaulikar for respondents-claimants.

2. The appellant-insurance company challenges the judgment and award dated 02.06.2021 in Claim Petition No.113/2013, by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) at Panaji awarded compensation of Rs. 21,42,093/- with interest @ 9% p.a. To the claimant for the demise of his wife, Mrs. Estelina Fernandes, in a vehicular accident that occurred on 04.04.2012.

3. Mr. Netravalkar fairly submitted that the appellant was not questioning the finding on rashness and negligence. He, however, submits that the claimant's petition was not maintainable because the claimant Dilon was not dependent on his wife, Estelina. Therefore, no compensation for dependency was payable to Dilon. Besides, he submitted that the accident occurred on 04.04.2012, but Estelina expired only on 05.03.2013. Consequently, he submitted that there was no nexus between the accident and Estelina's death. Without such nexus, he submits that the claim petition was not maintainable, or in any case, no compensation could have been awarded to Dilon.

4. Mr. Netravalkar, without prejudice, submitted that the compensation awarded is excessive. He submits that since the Tribunal has held that Estelina was a part-time teacher, no compensation could have been awarded based on Estelina allegedly being a homemaker. Consequently, he submits that there is duplication, and the Tribunal has failed to apply proper principles for determining compensation. For these reasons, he submits that the impugned award may be set aside.

5. Mr. Mulgaonkar learned Senior Advocate for the claimant defends the impugned award based on the reasoning therein. He submits that the medical evidence establishes the nexus between the accident and Estelina's demise. Accordingly, he submits that the Tribunal should have awarded at least Rs. 15 lakhs towards medical expenses incurred by the claimant over and above the compensation already awarded. Further, he submits that the correct principles have been applied. Since the claims and legal liabilities crystallize at the time of the accident, changes post thereto should not ordinarily affect pending proceedings. He relies on Kirti And Another v/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited - (2021) 2 SCC 166 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Aurangabad v/s. Bhimrao s/o Vitthalrao Kotgire & Ors. - 2019 (3) Mh.L.J. 344.

6. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

7. Considering the rival contentions, the following points arise for determination in this appeal:

(a) Whether Estelina's death has any nexus with the accident that occurred on 04.04.2012?

(b) Whether the Tribunal properly determined the compensation after considering the issues of dependency and quantum?

8. On the first aspect, though it is true that the accident occurred on 04.04.2012 and Estelina expired on 05.03.2013, the evidence on record overwhelmingly establishes the nexus between the accident and Estelina's demise.

9. Soon after the accident, Estelina was rushed to the Asilo Hospital, the nearest hospital. However, looking at the seriousness of her injuries and her state of health post-accident, she was shifted to the Goa Medical College & Hospital at Bambolim (GMC). She was admitted to the GMC for almost a month but failed to regain consciousness. Therefore on 20.05.2012, by a special ambulance, Estelina was shifted to Umrao Hospital in Mumbai under the treatment of Dr. Mohnish Bhatiwale and Dr. Parvez Ali Khan.

10. The evidence shows that despite the treatment of the above two doctors at Umrao Hospital, Estelina did not respond and was shifted to K.E.M. Hospital, Mumbai, on 08.06.2012. Again, since there was no significant improvement, Estelina was shifted to Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre on 30.08.2012, where she continued in a coma. Ultimately, Estelina was s