The court upheld the need for proper evidence linking injuries to death in compensation claims, emphasizing the importance of accurate classification in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P (MV) No.723 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents 2 and 3 before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 13.01.2009 at about 5.30 p.m, while the claimant was riding in a motorcycle bearing Reg.KL-8-9235, a lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-01/C 6809 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the claimant’s vehicle. As a result of which, he fell down to the road and sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to those injuries, during the pendency of the claim petition, on 20.04.2011. The legal heirs of the deceased approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹17,23,000/- limited to ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents/ driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/ insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. It was further contended that the accident occured due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant. Before the tribunal, PWs1 to 5 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹4,07,480/- under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer. Challenging the tribunal’s finding treating the claim petition as an injury case instead of a death case and claiming enhancement of compensation, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the claimant sustained serious injuries in the accident dated 13.01.2009 and later succumbed to the said injuries on 20.04.2011. Though the claimants had sought to treat the claim petition as a death case, the tribunal had awarded compensation treating it as an injury case. The following were the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident, which are as follows:

“Contusion and abrasion on anterior aspect of (R) shoulder anterior aspect, contusion (R) forearm, abrasion (R) hand fingers (3,5), contusion and abrasion (R) leg upper part, lacerated wound (R) leg lower part, contusion (R) foot, lacerated wound 3^rd web space of (R) foot, abrasion (R) knee, fracture parietal bone, intra cerebral heamorrhage, (R) fronto intra cerebral haemorrhage, (R) temporal contusion, fronto parietal extra dural hematoma, frontal contusion fracture (R) clavicle and open fracture of P1 of 4^th toe, impression of extensive subarachnoid hemorrhage, comminuted depressed fracture (L) parietal bone, the fracture is extending inferiorly to involve the Occipital bone in the (L) side, extra axial hematoma in the (L) fronto tempero parietal region, multiple hemorrhagic contusions are imaged in the left parietal and (R) frontal lobes.”

It was submitted that the death occurred as a result of the aforesaid injuries sustained in the accident and that he also developed mental depression consequent to the said injuries.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company, however, submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the cause of death was the injuries sustained in the accident, since no postmortem was conducted following the claimant’s death. It was further submitted that as per the documents produced and the injuri