Point of Law: The practice of insurance companies contesting genuine claims in a routine manner and dragging the parties to court and wasting enormous time and money. It is also observed that if such instances are brought to notice of court, court would be obliged to dismiss such appeals with heavy cost apart from deprecating such parties.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant-Insurance Company was the second respondent in OP(MV) No.9/2008 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents in the appeal were the supplemental petitioners 2 to 4 before the Tribunal. The first petitioner died during the pendency of the claim petition. Pursuant to the order in IA 4165/2010 dated 22.8.2014, supplemental petitioners 2 to 4 – the wife and children of the deceased original petitioner-were impleaded in the claim petition. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The original petitioner had filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, contending that on 28.10.2007, while the first petitioner – Kumaran Nair (deceased) – was walking through the Kawdiar -Ambalamukku public road, a car bearing registration No.KL-01/Q 4572, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and hit the deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries and was undergoing treatment. Ultimately, the deceased committed suicide on 14.1.2009. The petitioners 2 to 4 were impleaded as supplemental petitioners and consequential amendments were carried out. The petitioners contended that the accident occurred on account of the rashness on the part of the first respondent who was also the owner of the vehicle and that the second respondent was the insurer of the vehicle. The deceased was a helper in KTDC and earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the petitioners sought for compensation from the respondents 1 and 2, which they quantified at Rs.19,05,000/-. but limited to Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set ex parte.

4. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed a written-statement, inter-alia, contending that claim petition was not maintainable. The second respondent also disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased. However, the second respondent admitted that the vehicle had a valid insurance policy.

5. The second petitioner was examined as PW1 and a Doctor who treated the deceased was examined as PW2 and Exts A1 to A12 were marked through them in evidence.

6. The Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the clam petition, in part, by directing the second respondent to pay the petitioners 2 to 4 an amount of Rs.11,20,500/-with interest and costs.

7. Aggrieved by the award, the second respondent is in appeal.

8. Heard Sri.S.K.Ajay Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.R.T Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

9. The principal ground of challenge in the memorandum of appeal is that the deceased did not loose his life on account of the accident.

10. On a perusal of the available materials on record and the impugned award, it can be gathered that the petitioners had produced Ext A2 charge-sheet, wherein it has been specifically found that it was due to the negligence of the first respondent that the accident occurred. Ext A3 wound certificate and Ext A4 discharge summary substantiates that the deceased had to undergo prolonged treatment on account of the injuries. PW2, the Doctor who treated the deceased has deposed that the deceased suffered traumatic rupture of urethra and catheterisation was not possible and also the deceased had urinary incontinence, which leads a person to a very depressing state. The second petitioner – PW1 had deposed that the deceased could not carry on his day-to-day affairs due to his lose of vision and other ailments due to the accident. It was out of the continuous mental stress, anxieties and fears that led him to take the drastic step to end his life. The Tribunal found that there was a clear link between the accidental injuries and the depression which led to the deceased taking away his life because the deceased felt that he was a great burden to his relatives. Accordingly, it was held that