The court established that if death is due to injuries from an accident, causation must attribute liability for damages, overturning the Tribunal's ruling and adjusting awarded claim amounts.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners in O.P.(MV)No.715 of 2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha (hereinafter referred to as “MACT”) have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 05.07.2019 issued by the MACT.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The 2nd appellant herein and Smt.Bhavaniamma, the mother of the appellants were travelling in a car bearing registration No.KL- 44-A-5154 along the Muvattupuzha - Kothamangalam road. When they reached Mathirappilly, the car in which they were travelling collided with another car bearing registration No.KL-36-E-6007 which was coming from the opposite direction. The 2^nd appellant and Smt.Bhavaniamma sustained severe injuries and they were hospitalised at Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry. Smt.Bhavaniamma was treated as an inpatient from 28.05.2017 to 04.07.2017. She was discharged also on 04.07.2017 and was staying in her residence thereafter. However, on 14.07.2017, Smt.Bhavaniamma passed away, allegedly on account of the injuries sustained by her at the time of the accident on 28.05.2017.

3. In such circumstances, O.P.(MV) No.715 of 2017 was filed before the MACT, by the appellants herein contending that the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KL-44-A-5154 by the 1^st respondent in the claim petition. The 2^nd respondent in the claim petition was the owner of the car concerned and the 3^rd respondent before the Tribunal was the insurer.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 before the MACT - the driver and the owner of the vehicle chose to remain ex parte. The 3^rd respondent before the MACT - the 1^st respondent herein filed a written statement denying the age, occupation and income of the deceased, also contending that the death of Smt.Bhavaniamma had no proximity to the road traffic accident since the deceased was discharged on 04.07.2017 whereas the death took place only on 14.07.2017.

5. The Tribunal by the impugned award dated 05.07.2019 found that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle - 1^st respondent before the Tribunal. However, as regards the 2^nd question “whether the death of the deceased is due to the injuries sustained in the accident?”, the Tribunal found as under:

“Issue No.2 in O.P.No.715/2017:- According to the petitioners the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. According to the 3^rd respondent, on the other hand, the death has no connection with the injuries sustained in the accident. A perusal of Ext.A12 post-mortem report shows that the death is due to myocardial infraction. Ext.A11 is the discharge summary. It shows that she was discharged with advice of suture removal at a local hospital next Tuesday. According to the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, this will show that the deceased was discharged since she recovered from the injuries sustained in the accident. According to the learned counsel A11 and A12 would show that death of the deceased has absolutely no connection with the injuries sustained in the accident.

10. In this context it is worth referring to the evidence tendered by PW2. PW2 is the professor Neurosurgery MOSC Medical College Hospital, Kolenchery who examined the deceased. He would also say that Ext.A11 was issued from his hospital. According to PW2 any patient, especially old aged person with polytrauma and who have undergone multiple surgeries and nonambulent have high risk of myocardiac infraction. Admittedly, the deceased was