JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J.(Oral)

1. This appeal impugns compensation in MACT No. 3975/16 dated 31.10.2017 awarded by the learned MACT on the ground that it is devoid of any basis and is not supported by any medical evidence. According to the appellant, the claimants have placed no medical records or the post-mortem Report to substantiate their claim that the death of the injured/victim, six months after the accident, was related to the accident itself.

2. The learned Tribunal dealt with this issue as under:

"20. It was argued on behalf of insurance company that in the absence of any postmortem report, it cannot be held that the injured died due to the accidental injuries, more so when the death took place after about six months of the accident. This argument is bereft of merit. It is true that there is no postmortem report on record to show that the death took place due to accidental injuries but the widow of the deceased has stated on oath that the said death was due to the accidental injuries. The insurance company was free to bring any evidence on record contrary to this averment but no such evidence was brought on record by the insurance company and hence, the version of widow of the deceased that the death of her husband took place due to accidental injuries cannot be disbelieved, particularly in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it, is thus, held that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him in the accident."

3. On examination of the Trial Court Records, the Court finds that the widow, had stated that her husband had died on account of injuries suffered by him in the pelvic region. She had presented medical prescriptions and reports in support of the same. She withstood the cross-examination of her testimony that her injured husband visited the hospital at least 2-3 days daily till April, 2011; that her husband received grievous injuries on his leg, urinary bladder and spinal column; that he expired on 08.07.2011. She had not filed his post-mortem report. She denied the suggestion that her husband expired on account of some other ailment or that his death is not attributable to the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

4. The Court would note that the claimant has filed documents from January upto April, showing purchase of medicines as prescribed by attending doctors. Indeed, such receipts are at pages 159 to 170 of the LCR, showing purchase of medicines till 16.04.2011. The deceased passed away on 08.07.2011. One of the medicines prescribed was Roliflo, which comprises of Tamsulosin and Tolterodine. These two salts are stated to calm the enlarged muscle of the prostrate area and the bladder and assist in the flow of urine. The fact that the deceased had suffered a serious injury in his pelvic region and had to undergo a complicated surgery, is not in dispute. His frequent visits to the hospital are an indication that he had developed complications during his surgery. The non-availability of post-mortem report will not defeat the case of the claimant as has been held by the Madras High Court in Abdul Rahim & Anr. vs. Sundaresan & Anr., C.M.A. (MP) No. 898 of 2008 decided on 30.07.2009. The said case had relied upon a judgment of this Court in Klaus Mittelbachert vs. East India Hotels Ltd., AIR 1997 Del 201. It held inter alia as under:

"9. The counsel also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd., AIR 1997 Delhi 201, wherein it is stated as follows:

"128. In words & Phrases, Permanent Edn Vol. 21 at page 448, `injury causing death' has been defined as under:

" If an employee but for an injury would not have died at the time of which and in the way in which he did die the accident though it merely hastened a deep-seated disorder is regarded as resulting in an " injury causing death" within the Workmen's Compensation Act."

129. `Death resulting from injury' has been defined in Vol. XI page 46-47 (CAPP) ibid as follows:

"Death