JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the order made in M.C.O.P.No.112 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /Special Sub Court, Madurai. The appellant is the second respondent. The first respondent/ 1st claimant died. Hence the respondents 1 to 3 herein are brought on record as the legal representatives of the first respondent. 4th respondent is the first respondent in the claim petition.

2.Brief substance of the claim petition is as follows:

On 13.02.2016 at about 12.15 p.m., the first petitioner was travelling from Muthukulathur to Paramakudi, as a passenger sitting on the last seat of the right side in a bus bearing registration number TN 69 AJ 1280. The driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a Tamarind Tree. Due to the accident, the right hand of the petitioner was totally damaged. He was taken to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and took treatment from 13.02.2016 as in patient. Then he took treatment as inpatient at S.P.Ortho hospital, Madurai. The petitioner was working as a load man. He claimed a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs as compensation.

3.Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent is as follows:

The manner of accident is wrongly stated in the petition. The petitioner has to prove that the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The petitioners have to prove that the vehicle was having fitness certificate and the driver was having valid driving license. The bus driver drove the vehicle in a careful and conscious manner. When a bus tried to overtake a tractor, to avoid hitting the tractor, the bus driver turned the vehicle to the right side and the petitioner was keeping his hand outside the bus and hence the right hand of the petitioner was scratched by the road side tamarind tree. It was the petitioner who kept his hand outside the bus and hence the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. All the injuries are completely cured. The deceased died of some other disease. There is no nexus with the death of the deceased and the accident. Since the first petitioner died of some other disease, the other petitioners are not entitled to receive compensation. Post mortem report was not marked. There is no loss of income for the petitioners 2 to 4. The claim is excessive.

4.Three witnesses were examined and thirteen(13) documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondent. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,39,000/- as compensation.

5.Against the award, the second respondent in the claim petition has filed this appeal on the following grounds:

(i)The Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion that the injured died due to the injuries caused in the accident. The Tribunal failed to see that there was no post mortem conducted to know the cause of death. The deceased was admitted as inpatient in Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital for 24 days and then he took treatment in a private hospital from 04.04.2016 till 08.04.2016, that is for four days. Thereafter, the injured was admitted in the Madurai Government Hospital only on 12.06.2018 and he took treatment till 14.06.2018. The evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.3 reveals that the injured took treatment from 09.03.2016 till 14.03.2016 and then from

04.04.2016 to 08.04.2016. At the time of death, the deceased was not under treatment for the accidental injuries. There is no nexus between the death and the road accident. The injured died after a period of two years from the date of accident and there is no medical evidence to prove that he died due to the injuries caused in the accident. The Doctor who gave disability certificate was not examined. P.W.3 has deposed that in Ex.P.26, it was shown that the deceased was having liver problem. He had also deposed that the injured was having a habit of drinking and smoking and it would have resulted in kidney and liver fa