The central legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation unless the death or injuries are attributable to the accident or have aggravated the condition of the deceased person.

JUDGMENT

(Prayaer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgement and decree dated 05.07.2017 in MCOP.No.196 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.)

1. The above appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sivaganai in MCOP.No.196 of 2016 on the ground that the death was no way connected with the accident.

2. According to the claimants, the deceased was a native of Sivagangai District, but temporarily residing at Thiruvallur for the purpose of carrying out temple renovation work. On 11.02.2015 at about 3.15 p.m, when he was travelling in an Auto with the help of one Hemamalini, the said Auto driver had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and it got capsized. The deceased was injured all over the body and he was admitted to Thiruvallur Government Medical College Hospital and later referred to Rajiv Gandhi Hospital at Chennai where he passed away.

3. According to the claimants, the deceased was engaged in a temple renovation work and he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and he was maintaining the family. Therefore, the claimants have sought for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The owner cum driver of the Auto had remained exparte and the insurance company had filed a counter contending that the deceased had not sustained any external or internal injury due to the capsizing of the Auto. They have further contended that the deceased was suffering from coronary artery disease and he had passed away only due to the said disease and not due to the accident. The insurance company had further contended that the claimants have to prove nexus between the alleged injury and the death of the deceased. The insurance company had also questioned the quantum prayed for by the claimants.

5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence of PW1 and PW2, Exhibit P1-F.I.R and Exhibit P11-charge sheet, arrived at a finding that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the Doctor who was examined as RW1, arrived at a finding that the deceased was travelling in the Auto for taking treatment for his chest pain. In view of the accident, he had suffered mental shock and his Blood Pressure had got reduced. If the deceased had reached the hospital without any accident, he had chances to live for more years. Based upon the said findings, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased had died due to the sudden accident when he was already having chest pain.

6. The Tribunal had further found that the Auto driver was not having a badge at the relevant point of time and therefore, he was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The Tribunal had proceeded to fix the quantum of Rs.5,35,000/- after fixing the notional monthly income at Rs.7,500/-. This award is under challenge in the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company had contended that Exhibit R1 is the Accident Register prepared by the Doctor who was examined as RW1. As per the said Accident Register, the deceased after reaching the hospital had informed the Doctor that he had developed chest pain around 08.30 a.m and when he was on the way to hospital in the Auto, the accident had happened. As per F.I.R and the claim petition, the accident had happened at 3.15 p.m. The said timing recorded in the F.I.R is incorrect, in view of the fact that the deceased was admitted to the Government Hospital, Thiruvallur at 11.15 a.m on the said day. One Nalini associated with the temple renovation work, had followed the deceased in an another Auto and she was examined as PW2. According to her deposition, originally the deceased was taken to a private hospital at