The main legal point established in the judgment is the connection between the accident, depression, and suicide, and the principles of contributory negligence in cases of suicide resulting from accident-related depression.

J.R. MIDHA, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.7,75,860/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents no. 1 to 6.

2. On 29th November, 2012, Motiya (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’) was returning from Badarpur to his home in Madangir. He was waiting for the bus at the Badarpur bus stand when DTC bus No. DL-1PC-8319 came. The victim was boarding the bus from the backdoor when the driver drove the bus whereupon the victim fell out and the bus ran over his left leg resulting in multiple fracture and grievous injuries. A rod was inserted in the left leg of the victim. The victim was the only earning member of the family comprising of his wife, four daughters, a son and mother. The injured went into depression due to the injuries suffered and committed suicide on 13th August, 2013 which resulted in death on 15th August, 2013.

3. The legal representatives of the victim filed application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal which was contested by the appellant on the ground that there was no connection between the accident and the death of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal held that the depression suffered by the victim arose out of the accident dated 29th November, 2012 as a main contributor. Para 42 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“42. The commission of suicide, in itself shows that something must have weighed very heavily on the mind of the injured. His circumstances and inability to cope with, would have definitely resulted into depression, and by its very propensity and propinquity, the act of committing suicide by the injured seems to be an outcome of depression. The depression can be attributed to injuries, pain and sufferings, arising out of the accident dated 29.11.2012, as a major contributor, even if other factors like poor economic condition, stoppage of income, inability to work are also identified as factors, which ought have led the injured to commit suicide. The Tribunal, accordingly, hold that the act of injured in committing suicide has been propelled by injury, and injury related depression and accordingly hold that the suicide dated 13.08.2015 is also on account of the post traumatic depression, arising out of the accident dated 29.11.2012. Considering, however, that there were other factors which must have weighed upon the mind of the injured and not the injury alone, the Tribunal hold that the injury, prolonged treatment and his inability to move or walk, all arising out of accident, must have the contributed to 50% of the reasons to commit suicide, if at all it is to be mathematically worked out.”

4. The deceased was aged 52 years at the time of the accident and was self-employed. The Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of Rs.7,251/- in respect of an unskilled person, added 15% towards inflation, deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 11 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.8,25,528/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1 lakh towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Claims Tribunal deducted 50% towards the contributory negligence of the deceased and added Rs.1,13,096/- towards the medical expenditure. Total compensation awarded is Rs.7,75,860/-.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that there was no connection between the injuries suffered by the victim in the accident and his death. It is submitted that the deceased died due to the suicide and the same cannot be considered as a death arising out of the accident. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded to the respondents is on a higher side. It is further submitted that respondents no.1 to 6 are only entitled to the loss of estate.

6. Learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 6 referred to and relied upon Venugopal Narayanan Nair v. T.L. Paulson, AIR 2009 Ker 86 in which the Kerala High C