The court emphasized the principle of 'Actio persona morito cum persona,' which holds that the action dies with the person, and in this case, the injuries sustained in the road accident were not the cause of the claimant's death.

JUDGMENT :

P.T. ASHA, J.

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 26.10.2017 made in M.C.O.P. No. 747 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Puducherry.

1. The above appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has failed to take note of the principle “Actio persona morito cum persona.”

2. The facts in brief are as follows:

(i) The original claimant Punniyamurthy had filed M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 747 of 2011 claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

(ii) It is his case that on 29.06.2010 at about 5.45 hours, the deceased and his crew of band masters had requested a Jeep driver Ramesh to drop them at Pondicherry. When the vehicle in which, they were travelling near the Theepanjamman temple at the East Coast Road, an Omni bus belonging to the first respondent bearing Registration No. KL-45-D-1800, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Jeep in which the petitioner and others were travelling from behind. On account of this impact, the Jeep dashed against the electric pole and palm tree and stopped a meter away from the place of occurrence. The claimant had sustained injuries to his body, which has been detailed in column 8 of the claim petition as follows:

3. The accident has taken place on 29.06.2010 and it appears that the claimant had died on 28.12.2013. Thereafter, the original claim petition was converted into one claiming compensation for the death of the said Punniyamurthy and the claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the said Punniyamurthy, namely his wife, children and mother. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 16,05,825/-.

4. The Insurance Company has challenged the said award contending that there was no nexus between the death and the injuries sustained by the deceased.

5. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. A perusal of the discharge slip dated 06.07.2010 marked as Ex.P-4 and the wound certificate dated 29.06.2010 marked as Ex.P-6 would indicate that the injuries sustained by the deceased/claimant were multiple injuries, which was treated conservatively. In Ex.P6, a question mark is put next to the words Head Injury, which would indicate that there was only a possibility of the deceased/claimant having suffered head injury. The discharge slip would show that the patient had improved on the date of his discharge, which was on 06.07.2010. There is no reference therein about the head injury. Thereafter, a perusal of Ex.P8, which is a series of discharge summary would clearly demonstrate that the claimant had died on account of a dilated cardio myopathy, which is totally unrelated to the injuries that he had sustained in a road accident. Therefore, the injuries sustained by the deceased cannot be taken as the reason for his death. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal that the death was a result of the road accident is totally misconceived and contrary to the documentary evidence filed.

7 .Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award and decree dated 26.10.2017 made in M.C.O.P. No. 747 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Puducherry is set aside. No costs.