The misclassification of a claim type by the tribunal warrants remand for proper evaluation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P (MV) No.980 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging the award passed by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents 1 and 3 before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 12.12.2010 at about 11.45 a.m., while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-01/AG 5595, a private bus bearing Registration No. KL-02-AD-8998, driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹19,00,000/-.

3. The 1st respondent/owner and the 2nd respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹2,21,813/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Challenging the tribunal award for considering the claim petition as a case of injury and not as a death case, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, 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 death occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident, but the tribunal erroneously treated the case as an injury case instead of a death claim and awarded only a meagre amount. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident occurred on 12.12.2010 and that the deceased had been hospitalised from the date of the accident and remained under continuous treatment in the hospital and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 16.01.2011. The learned counsel for the claimants relied on the death summary alleged to have been issued from the Sankar Institute of Medical Science & Research Centre, Kollam dated 02.02.2011 and submitted that the doctor who had treated the deceased had stated as follows :-

Mr, Aravindakshan, 55 years, (H.No:910-18891) a known diabetic, CAD patient on dual antiplatelets, was admitted to the Neurosurgery intensive Care Unit on 12/12/2010 following a history of alleged road traffic accident. At admission, he was drowsy, vitals stable, GCS E3M4-5V1-2. pupils equal and reacting to light bilaterally. There were no chest, abdomen, pelvic, long bone or spine injuries. CT scan of the head showed left frontotemporoparietal acute subdural hematoma with mass effect. He was electively ventilated and developed prolonged refractory hypotension and was resuscitated with IV fluids and vasopressors. He had paraplegia, screening X rays of the spine were normal, but MRI of the neuraxis could not be done as he was not co-operative. He developed acute renal failure and ventilator associated pneumonia which were managed appropriately. He was tracheotomised and weaned off ventilatory support, his sensorium improved to E4M5-6VT. Serial CT scans of the head showed resolution of intracranial hemorrhage. At 0605 am on 16/1/2011, he developed sudden cardiorespiratory arrest and succumbed to his illness.

Hence according to the appellant the cause of death was the injury sustained in the accident and submitted that the tribunal ought to have considered the claim as a death case and awarde