K.P. Jyothindranath, J.

This appeal is preferred against the award dated 30.11.2011 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 494/2008 on the file of the Ist Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The Tribunal allowed the claim. The appellant is the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who was the third respondent in the claim petition. Aggrieved by the above referred award, the Insurance Company came up with this appeal.

2. The facts relevant for consideration of this appeal is as follows:

The first respondent filed a claim petition before the M.A.C.T., Kozhikode claiming a total compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. The case of the petitioner therein was that she sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 10.9.2006 while she was travelling in a car which was hit by a jeep bearing registration No. KL-56/1185. The appellant herein is the insurer of the said jeep. In the claim petition, it was alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep. The further case of the petitioner therein was that she sustained injuries in the accident and was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for treatment. It was also the case of the petitioner that she was pregnant at that point of time and her pregnancy was aborted. The Tribunal marked Exts.A1 to A7 documents. No oral evidence was adduced. After considering the materials, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,20,276/- and directed the appellant herein to deposit the amount before the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said award and direction, this appeal is preferred.

3. When the appeal came up for hearing, the main contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the claimant may be pregnant at that point of time. But there is nothing before the court to show that the alleged abortion was the direct impact of the alleged accident. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even though the accident occurred on 10.9.2006, she was seen treated only on 16th of the said month and thereafter admitted in the hospital only on 18.9.2006. Under such circumstances, the petitioner failed to prove that the abortion, if any, was the direct result/impact of the accident. It is also brought to our notice that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded towards compensation for loss of unborn child. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that admittedly the foetus was aged only 50 days. If that is so, the foetus can by no stretch of imagination, be treated as an unborn child and no amount should have been awarded on the head of compensation towards loss of unborn child. It is also the submission that by going through the award, it can be seen that various decisions are referred by the Tribunal wherein it is categorically stated that only after 20 weeks (five months) a foetus can be considered as a child or can be considered for compensation purposes. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company also specifically stated before us that in the written statement in paragraph 10 it is categorically stated that: "the petitioner has to establish that the alleged abortion happened due to the accident. The wound certificate is not produced by the petitioner." Under such circumstances, the Tribunal erred in awarding the said amount.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner submitted before us that here is a case where so many persons sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The case of the claimant is that she was pregnant at the time of accident. Along with the other persons, who got injured in the accident, she was also taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. But surely, compared to the other persons, there was no serious external injuries sustained to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, after giving first aid, she was allowed to go back home and being a pregnant lady, immediately she went to the house. But thereafter developed bleeding and soon she approached a local Gynecologist which fact will