IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SUBBIAH, SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, JJ.
Senthil Kumar (died) & Others - Appellant
Versus
Jothivel & Others - Respondent
C.M.A. Nos. 3913 and 4575 of 2019 & C.M.P. No. 26004 of 2019 in C.M.A. No. 4575 of 2019
Decided On : 15-02-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation for Accident - Section 173 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - The court discussed the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation for a fatal accident, the nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the subsequent death of the victim, and the assessment of compensation under various heads. The court emphasized the need for establishing a direct nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the victim's death, and the application of the multiplier method for assessing loss of income.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased sustained grievous injuries in a road accident and subsequently died. The claimants sought compensation, alleging that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Insurance Company denied the claim, arguing that there was no nexus between the injuries and the death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no valid reason to hold that the injuries sustained by the deceased caused his death. It emphasized the need for establishing a direct nexus between the injuries and the death to award compensation. The court also upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased's death was directly caused by the injuries sustained in the accident, and whether the claimants were entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimants failed to prove a direct nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the victim's death, and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation for the death. The court also upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were dismissed, and the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the awarded compensation, less the amount already deposited, along with interest. The court permitted the claimants to withdraw their respective shares of the compensation, and directed the share of minor claimants to be deposited in an interest-bearing Fixed Deposit until they attain majority.
JUDGMENT :
R. Subbiah, J.
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.184 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Ariyalur.
1. These appeals are heard through Video Conferencing.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arraigned before the Tribunal as Insurance Company and claimants.
3. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in and by its judgment dated 12.09.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.184 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Ariyalur, claimants have filed C.M.A.No.3913 of 2019. Questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company to pay compensation, the Insurance Company had filed C.M.A.No.4575 of 2019.
4. Since both appeals arise out of one and the same judgment, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(b) The claimants have stated that, at the time of accident, the deceased Senthil Kumar's body weight was 60 kgs. and in view of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he was permanently bed-ridden. On account of the same, his weight had increased to 90 Kgs. Similarly, the cholesterol level of the deceased had also excessively increased, which had resulted in his heart attack. Thus, the claimants contend that the death was only due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
6. Resisting the claim made by deceased, the Insurance Company had initially filed a detailed counter statement, inter-alia contending that the accident had not occurred in the manner as projected by deceased. They have also denied the age, occupation and income of deceased. The Insurance company had also filed an additional counter statement, denying the claim of claimants that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the deceased was confined to bed, owing to which, his weight had increased from 60 to 90 Kgs., his cholesterol level had excessively increased and he died on 11.04.2017 due to heart attack. It was further stated that the accident occurred on 17.07.2015 and the deceased was discharged from the hospital on 01.08.2015. The deceased also appeared before the Medical Board, and the Board had also issued Ex.P-16 certificate assessing his disability at 80%. At the time of discharge, the health of the deceased was in good condition. Moreover, the deceased died only on 11.04.2017, i.e., after a period of 18 months of the accident. Therefore, the claim of the claimants that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, is totally unsustain
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.