The court emphasized the importance of establishing a nexus between the accident and death in compensation claims, and the need for evidence to support various heads of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.04.2016 made in O.P.No.4813 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (In the II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. This Appeal is preferred by Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal. On 09.07.2011, at about 21.15 hours, while the accident victim Thiru.Velayudham was crossing near Ennore High road near IOC 1st bridge, Chennai, an auto bearing registration No.TN-05-T-2649 coming from North to South direction rash and negligently hit against Thiru.Velayudham. The said Thiru.Velayudham sustained head injury. He was admitted in the Stanley Hospital between 09.07.2011 to 27.08.2011. Thereafter, he was discharged with advice to attend O.P. On 12.09.2011, he died. Hence, his wife and sons have preferred the claim petition against the owner of the auto and his insurer, claiming a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation.

3. In the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased was working as Coolie in a steel work shop and earning Rs.300/- per day. He was about 58 years at the time of accident.

4. The Insurance Company filed counter stating that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, without due care, he tried to cross the road. Hence, met with an accident. The claimant Nos. 2 and 3, who are sons of the deceased are not depending on the deceased. They are adult male members aged about 29 and 27 respectively and they are not dependants on the deceased and not entitled for compensation. The death of the victim was not due to the accident injury. He died due to cardiac arrest, after he got discharged from the hospital.

5. The Tribunal, relying upon the F.I.R marked as Ex.P.1, concluded that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent vehicle driver. The Doctor examined on behalf of the plaintiff has opined that the deceased died due to head injury and complication arising out of the treatment and therefore, in the absence of post-mortem certificate, no presumption could be drawn that the death was not due to the accident injury. Based on the age mentioned in the death memorandum Ex.P.8 and death certificate Ex.P.9, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 60 years and relying upon the legal heirs certificate Ex.P.10, the claimants were considered as dependants of the deceased for awarding compensation.

6. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/-, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure. The Tribunal has applied multiplier 9 and awarded a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- towards pecuniary loss. Under the other heads, had awarded Rs.3,46,000/- and totally fixed the compensation at Rs.8,86,000/- with the following breakup.

With 7.5% interest from the date of numbering the petition (21.11.2011) till the date of deposit.

7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the accident occurred on 09.07.2011. After performing surgery on his right Front Temporal Parietal region on 23.07.2011, he was discharged from the hospital on 27.08.2011. Thereafter, he died on 12.09.2011 due to cardiac arrest. There is no nexus between the road accident and the death. The cause of death not due to the accident injury. Hence, the Tribunal ought not have applied the multiplier for fatal ac