Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12335
2025 MHC 806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Rajamani - Appellant
Versus
Vanitha - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 459 of 2025
Decided On : 05-03-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : S.P. Yuaraj
For the Respondent : J. Chandran
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj
For the Respondent: Mr.J.Chandran
Compensation for road accident injuries must consider causation of death; pre-existing health conditions can negate claims for death due to accident injuries.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation for road accident - Claimants sought Rs.35,00,000/- for death of the deceased due to injuries from an accident on 15.07.2018 - Tribunal awarded Rs.3,68,793/- for medical expenses, finding death not caused by accident injuries - Claimants appealed for higher compensation. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Negligence - Tribunal found negligence on part of the vehicle driver but concluded death was due to pre-existing health conditions, not accident injuries. (Paras 5-10)
Facts of the case:
The deceased suffered injuries in a road accident and died after extensive treatment for both accident-related injuries and chronic kidney disease. Claimants argued that death was due to the accident. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the deceased's death was not caused by the accident but by chronic kidney disease, while enhancing compensation for loss of earnings and medical expenses. (Paras 10-12)
Issues: Whether the deceased's death was caused by the accident or pre-existing health conditions, and the adequacy of compensation awarded. (Paras 6-7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence indicated the deceased's death was due to chronic kidney disease, not the accident, and adjusted compensation accordingly. (Paras 8-12)
Result: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's award confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P. No. 1230 of 2020, dated 18.04.2023, the claimants have come before this Court.
2. It is not in dispute that the husband of the 1st claimant, father of the claimants 2 to 5 namely Jayaraman suffered injury and died in a road accident that had occurred on 15.07.2018. It was averred by the claimants that deceased was proceeding in his TVS XL Super Moped along with his wife as a pillion rider towards Kurumbatti Mottur to attend the religious function at his relative's house. Though the deceased was driving his two wheeler on the extreme left side of the road, the Tavera Car belonging to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Krishnagiri for treatment. Thereafter, he was admitted in Ganga Medical Centre and Hospitals Private Limited, Coimbatore and he had been treated as inpatient from 19.07.2018 to 31.07.2018. Again, the deceased was admitted at St.Johns Medical College Hospital and treated there from 22.01.2019 to 04.02.2019. Again, he was admitted in Coimbatore Hospital as inpatient from 26.07.2019 to 30.07.2019. Inspite of intensive treatment given, he died on 11.08.2019. Therefore, the claimants laid a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- on the ground that the deceased died only due to the injuries suffered by him on road accident.
3. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was contested only by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. It was the case of the 2nd respondent that accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It was further contended by the 2nd respondent that deceased died nearly after one year from the date of accident and hence, the death was not caused due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, but it was due to the other illness.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant was examined as PW.1 and on behalf of the claimants, 17 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documents were marked.
5. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record fixed negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent-vehicle. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the deceased died only due to hypertension and acute chronic kidney disease and his death was not due to the injuries suffered by him in the road accident. As a consequence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants were not entitled to compensation for the death of deceased. However, it held that the claimants were entitled to compensation for the expenses incurred by the estate of the deceased in treating the injuries suffered by him in a road accident. Ultimately, the compensation payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.3,68,793/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, the claimants have come before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants vehemently contended that deceased died only due to the road accident and hence, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion he died due to the kidney failure. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head medical expenses is very much on lower side considering the medical bills produced by the claimants.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that deceased died nearly one year after accident and based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the death was not due to the injury suffered by him in the road accident and the same requires no interference. The lea
