Point of Law : Only due to non-production of postmortem report, claim for compensation would not be defeated.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim Petition No.504/2015 vide award dated 05.05.2016. Hence this appeal Under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. One Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar met with motor vehicle accident while crossing the road on 22.11.2006. As per the eyewitness the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ-14-1C-4052. For the accident aforesaid FIR No.224/2006 was registered with Adarsh Nagar Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle. After investigation of the case, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the driver. Copy of the FIR and charge-sheet are exhibited documents on the record.

3. In the Accident aforesaid, Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar sustained fracture on shaft of right tibia and right fibula as well as fracture of right fifth and sixth ribs. Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar filed a claim case on 18.01.2007 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. On 15.12.2008, Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar died. Thereafter, the appellants who are widow and two sons of Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar got themselves substituted in the claim case on 16.09.2009 and raised claim under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicle Act.

4. The owner and driver of the vehicle, though party in the claim case, did not appear to contest the claim case, only insurer contested the case. The defense of the insurer was that the driver had violated the terms and conditions of the Policy, hence the insurer is not liable.

5. The claimants examined witnesses including eye-witness of the incidents and got several documents exhibited. However respondents led no evidence.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record accepted the factum of accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The Tribunal further held that the vehicle was insured at the time of accident with United Insurance Company Limited. However, the Tribunal was of the view that there was no nexus between the injuries sustained during the accident and the death of Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar, therefore, the claimants were not entitled for compensation for death in the motor vehicle accident. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for loss to the estate, Rs.50,000/- for transportation during the long treatment and Rs.50,000/- for special diet to the deceased. Total Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded along with interest @ 9% from the date of application dated 18.01.2007.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there was/is overwhelming evidence on the record to substantiate that the fracture of Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar was not cured, due to serious infection, till his death. Since fracture had not been cured, Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar, who was a patient of hypertension and glycemia remained on bed leading to further complication of kidney failure at the time of his death. Therefore, consequences of accident, i.e., fracture of leg bone was there all along till his death and that was the main reason for premature death even after two years’ treatment of Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar. Learned counsel contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly relied on the opinion of Dr. Anil Choudhary, who was one of the panelist doctor of the insurer. According to the doctor, there was no nexus between the injury and death.

Learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court to the cross-examination of Dr. Anil Choudhary, wherein he has admitted that it is a fact that both bones of right leg of Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar were fractured and for that reason Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar was unable to move. The witness further admitted that he had not seen any document which showed that the bones of the leg had already got unioned nor he had ever seen the patient.

8. Learned counsel for the insurer-respondent contends that there is a gap of two years in between the accident and death and the doctor has opined