Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J. (Oral):- The claimants aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal that there was no nexus between the death of Shiv Parsad and the injuries he sustained in the motor accident have come forward with the present appeal. The Tribunal having thus held awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- as lumpsum compensation.

2. It has been contended by the claimants in the claim petition that when Shiv Parsad (since deceased) was going alongwith his wife Kiran Bala in a rickshaw from their house to PGI, Chandigarh on 3.12.2005, a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-23-B-9602 driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner by the 1st respondent came from behind and struck against the rickshaw and as a result of which Shiv Parsad fell down and received serious injuries. Contending that he remained under treatment and later on died on 13.3.2006 due to the injuries he sustained in the accident, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs.25 lacs as compensation.

3. The 1st and 2nd respondents contended in the written statement that the claimants suppressed the fact that the deceased was a patient of diabetes for more than 10 years and that he had been undergoing treatment in PGI, Chandigarh. They sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The 3rd respondent-insurance company submitted in its written statement that the driver of the offending motor vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. On merits, it was contended that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. The Tribunal held that deceased Shiv Parsad sustained injuries in the accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-23-B-9602 driven by respondent No.1. It has also been held that the 1st respondent was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the offending vehicle also was insured with respondent No.3-insurance company. But the Tribunal having held that there was no nexus between the death of Shiv Parsad and the road accident, just granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- as a consolidated sum of compensation without fixing the amount of compensation in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, referring to the evidence of PW1 Dr.H.S.Kohli and PW5 Dr.Ramesh Sain attached to PGI, Chandigarh would submit that the death had taken place only on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased who was already a diabetic with kidney disease and Tuberculosis disease. It is his submission that the Tribunal had completely misread the evidence and come to a conclusion that there was no nexus between the death of Shiv Parsad which took place on 13.3.2006 and the accident which took place on 3.12.2005.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company would submit that PW3 and PW5 have not come out with any definite version that the death has occasioned only on account of the injuries Shiv Parsad sustained in the motor accident. Referring to the medical evidence, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that Shiv Parsad had diabetic problem apart from the kidney and tuberculosis diseases he was afflicted with. The very fact that there was no evidence to establish the follow-up treatment would go to show that he had died only on account of health complications he had even prior to the accident. It is his submission that no post mortem examination was conducted. Nor was any information passed on to the police as to the death of Shiv Parsad. It is his further submission that the deceased had left the hospital against the medical advise. Therefore, it is his submission that the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no nexus between the death and the accident.

8. It is the admitted position that the deceased was a diabetic for about 10 long years prior to the accident. Infact, the averment in the claim petition would disclose that the accident took place when they were proceeding to