Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR & M. GOVINDARAJ, JJ.
The United India Insurance Company, Chennai - Appellant
Vs.
M. Elangovan (died) & Ors. - Respondents
C.M.A.No.1598 of 2017, C.M.P.No.8423 of 2017
Decided On : 05-06-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Dhiraviyanathan.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of medical evidence and legal precedents to determine the cause of death and the reasonableness of compensation in motor accident claims.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident - 2010 (3) MLJ 1299, Abdul Rahim v. Sundaresan - 1975 ACJ 215, Govind Singh and others vs. A.S. Kailasam and another - 1986 ACJ 55, Kumar Mohamed Rafique (since deceased) by his heirs vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay - 1987 ACJ 224, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others vs. Shakuntla Bai and others - 1992 ACJ 110, Usha Jhingran and others vs. Budhsen and others - 1995 ACJ 980, Klaus Mittelbachert and others vs. East India Hotels Ltd. and others - 2005 ACJ 433, Vidhyawati and another vs. A. Guruswamy and another
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a claim petition for compensation for the death of M.Elangovan due to injuries sustained in a motor accident. The appellant-Insurance Company contested the claim, arguing that there was no nexus between the injuries sustained and the subsequent death of the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed that the death was due to accidental injuries based on medical evidence and previous legal precedents. The determination of compensation by the Claims Tribunal was upheld as reasonable and not excessive.
Issues: The main issue was whether the injuries sustained in the motor accident were the cause of the victim's death, and the disputed determination of monthly income by the Claims Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on medical evidence and legal precedents to confirm the cause of death and the reasonableness of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
United India Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 07.09.2016, made in M.C.O.P.No.725 of 2013, by which, compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- has been awarded, for the death of one M.Elangovan. Claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.725 of 2013 was made, when he was alive, for the injuries sustained in the accident, which occurred on 25.07.2013. It is the case of his wife, Kannaki, that due to the injuries, he died on 23.10.2013.
2. RW.1, Mr. Kamaraj, Legal Assistant of the appellant-Insurance Company, has been examined as RW.1 and through him, Ex.R1 - Inspection Report, has been marked. RW.1, in his evidence, has deposed that immediately, after the accident, the injured was taken to Government General Hospital, Chennai and took inpatient treatment from 25.07.2013 to 30.07.2013. When the injured was discharged from hospital, the Doctors have advised him to attend the outpatient ward after two weeks. But the injured has not taken any treatment, after discharge and he attended the hospital only on 21.10.2013. On examination, the Doctors have given the report, stating that, "he was apparently normal, till two days back". However, injured died on 23.10.2013. According to RW.1, the injured was in good condition from the date of discharge, ie., on 30.07.2013, till the date of re-admission on 21.10.2013. Therefore, RW.1 has deposed that death was not due to the injuries, sustained in the accident.
3. On re-admission, the Doctors have recorded that the injured was "lencocytonens, thrombogtopmia with elevated renal and liver functions parameters. Injured was diagnosed with sepsis with multi organ disfunction and he died on 23.10.2013. PW.3, Doctor, in his chief examination has stated as follows:
"His death summary reveals the cause of death due to (i) old temporal bone fracture left side, (ii) systemic sepsis, (iii) multi organ dysfunction, (iv) septic shock, and (v) cardiopulmonary arrest. As per medical sentence, head injury can decrease a patient, cognitive function (higher brain function) ambulation. Such people are deep vain thormbors and pulmonary embulsion, atelectous and lung collapse, bed score and septemia, post head injury seqular (unresolved haematoma). And in death summary, the first possible reason states as left temporal bone fracture and haematoma, which can make the patient bed ridden and can cause various complications leading to death. The death caused by 3 months from the time of injury is to be considered the major factor for death."
4. Upon perusal of Ex.P5 - Death Report, the Claims Tribunal held that death was due to the fracture in the left temporal bone, which lead to sepsis with multi organ disfunction. Though the respondents claimed that the deceased was engaged in Real Estate business and earned Rs.25,000/- per month, the Claims Tribunal, determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,750/-, applied 15' multiplier, for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family of the deceased, on the basis of the entry made in the claim statement, wherein, the age of the deceased was shown as 42 years. After deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal computed the loss of contribution to the family as Rs.10,50,000/- (Rs.8,750/- x 12 x 15 x 2/3). In addition to the above, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.50,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation and Rs.2,000/- for damages to clothes. Altogether, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.14,02,000/-, as compensation. Since the claim was made only for Rs.13,00,000/-, the Claims Tribunal restricted to award Rs.13,00,000/- as compensation, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation.
5. Mr. A. Dhiraviyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that there is no nexus between the injuries sust
