MACA.No.835/2009

MACA.No.835/2009 1 # _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ # _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 835 OF 2009_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 722/1992 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT_ _CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE_ ## _APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:_ _UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP.BY ITS DY.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM._ _BY ADV.SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR_ ## _RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 3 TO 6 & 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY:_ - _1 LAKSHMANAN, S/O.KUTTIRAMAN, BANGLADESH COLONY, WEST HILL POST, KOZHIKODE._ - _2 BABU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O.KUTTIRAMAN, BANGLADESH COLONY, WEST HILL, POST, KOZHIKKODE._ - _3 SUNIEENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O.KUTTIRAMAN, BANGLADESH COLONY, WEST HILL POST, KOZHIKKODE._ - _4 SURESHAGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, S/O.KUTTIRAMAN,BANGLADESH COLONY, WEST HILL POST, KOZHIKKODE._ MACA.No.835/2009 2 - _5 V.K. SHANMUGHAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O.V.K. KUNHIRAMAN,1/866 SHINE, COLLECTRATE'S, BENGLOW, WEST HILL, KOZHIKKODE._ _ADV. ANJU R.S_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.835/2009 3 ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal is submitted by the 3rd respondent in O.P. (MV).No.722 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. This is the second round of litigation. Initially, the said claim petition was submitted by one Kuttiraman, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 20.10.1991. 2. The accident occurred when he was walking along the National Highway, a scooter bearing registration No.KEZ-6048 hit him, thereby, causing serious injuries. Immediately thereafter, he was admitted to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, and after in-patient treatment of 19 days, he was discharged. Subsequently, he continued the treatment in a mental hospital as an outpatient. While so, on 01.03.1992, he died. His legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 6 in the claim petition. The claim petition was amended by converting it as a petition for compensation for the death of the deceased, as it was the specific case of the claimants that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the MACA.No.835/2009 4 motor accident. Initially, an award was passed on 11.08.1997, rejecting the contention of the claimants that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal calculated compensation for the injuries sustained by the said person, and then the award was passed. The claimants challenged the said award before this Court by filing M.F.A.No.1371 of 1997, which this Court disposed of, as per judgment dated 01.11.2006. In the said judgment, the award passed by the Tribunal was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to enable the claimants to adduce fresh evidence to substantiate that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident. After the remand, the claimants examined PW4, and thereafter, the present award was passed by holding that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Compensation was determined as Rs.1,36,275/- and the appellant herein, being the insurer of the said vehicle, was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 6%. MACA.No.835/2009 5 This appeal is submitted by the appellant/3rd respondent challenging the said finding. 3. Heard Smt.Raji T.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Anju.R.S., learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant specifically contends that absolutely no evidence was available to hold that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries in the accident. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 coupled with Exts.X1 and X2, the details of the treatment availed by the deceased, would clearly establish that, in the accident, he sustained very serious injuries and he never regained his health after the said accident which ultimately led to his death. 5. I have carefully gone through the records. Of course, it is true that this Court remanded the matter to enable the claimants to adduce evidence to substantiate their contention that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However, no medical evidence was adduced by MACA.No.835/2009 6 examining the doctors who treated him. The explanation offered by the learned counsel for the claimants in this regard is that as the accident occurred in the year 1991 and as the remand was in the year 2006, the Doctors who treated the deceased at the relevant time were not available at the hospital concerned. Therefore, they could not take the necessary steps in this regard. The lapse of time also prevented the claimants from collecting further details relating to the treatment availed by the deceased as well, contends the learned counsel for the claimants. However, the learned counsel for the claimants specifically highlighted the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 to substantiate the said contention. It was also pointed out that the parties herein belong to lower strata of society, and they have several limitations in collecting the materials in this regard and making them available before the Court. 6. After considering the entire materials available on record, I am of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimants cannot be simply brushed aside. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, even in the absence of MACA.No.835/2009 7 any medical evidence indicating the actual cause of the death of the deceased, the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident is discernible from Exts.X1 and X2. The accident occurred on 20.10.1991 and he died on 01.03.1992. It is also to be noted in this regard that he was 50 years old at the time of the accident and was working as a head load worker. There is nothing to suggest that he was suffering from any ailments before the date of the accident. On the other hand, Ext.X1 and X3 would clearly indicate that the injuries suffered by him, including head injuries, resulted in neurological problems, too. The consistent case of PW1, PW2 and PW3 is that consequent to the injuries, his mental balance was lost, and he had availed treatment as an out-patient from the mental hospital at Kozhikode as well. These are the facts which are not seen seriously disputed. 7. PW1 is the wife of the deceased. She asserted that the deceased was an able-bodied man and he was the sole breadwinner of the family, until he suffered injuries in the accident. He sustained head injuries in the accident, and he was MACA.No.835/2009 8 not conscious when admitted to the hospital. Even though he was treated as an in-patient for 19 days in the hospital, the injuries sustained on his head were not healed. After his discharge, again, he went to the hospital for treatment, and thereafter, on several occasions, he continued the treatment. It is also the case of the claimants that, they were advised to avail treatment in a mental hospital at Kuthiravattom, and even though they took him there, he was not admitted, and the treatment was continued as an outpatient. She also asserts that after the accident, her husband was bedridden, and he was having mental illness as well. She also stated about the impairment in eyesight consequent to the injuries in the accident. 8. PW3 is yet another person who was a relative of the deceased. His evidence is to the effect that after the accident, the mental balance of the deceased was affected in the accident, and he never used to talk. He was completely bedridden after his discharge, and he had bed sores all over his body. The injury on the back of his head was also not healed, and eventually, it led to death. He also asserts that before the accident he was very MACA.No.835/2009 9 healthy and was carrying out the avocation of a head load worker. PW4 is the son of the deceased. He also specifically asserts about the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident and the consequences thereof, which include the mental imbalance and the lack of ability to speak. The PW4 also asserts that the death was due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Even though he was cross-examined, he asserted that the deceased was not having any mental illness before the accident. 9. Exts.X1 and X2 are the case records from the Medical College hospital. The aforementioned Ext.X1 would also clearly indicate the details of the treatment of the deceased for a period of 19 days. The serious nature of head injuries is mentioned in the said document as well. Ext.X2 is the extract of the nominal register of our outpatients maintained by the Government Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode. As per the same, the deceased was availing treatment from the said hospital as an outpatient during the said period. Thus, when all the aforesaid aspects, i.e., the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 coupled with Exts.X1 and X2 are MACA.No.835/2009 10 taken into consideration, it leads to the conclusion that the deceased, who was otherwise healthy and able-bodied person, suffered serious injuries in the accident which occurred on 20.10.1991. Consequent to the same, his mental balance was lost and was completely bedridden for the remaining period until he died on 01.03.1992. Even though there is no absolute evidence, including the Postmortem report, to conclude that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the accident, evidently, the materials referred to above would clearly indicate that the injuries sustained in the accident played a crucial role in the premature death of the deceased. As mentioned above, there is no evidence to suggest that he had any physical or mental ailments before the date of the accident. In such circumstances, as the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident were one of the major contributory factors which led to the death of the deceased, the claim put forward by the claimants seeking compensation for the death has to be treated as maintainable. In this regard, the decision relied on by the leanred counsel for the claimants in **Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v.** MACA.No.835/2009 11 **Meenakumari and Ors.[2022 ACJ 638]** also has some relevance. Of course, that was the case where the victim of the accident committed suicide on account of the depression that developed from the injuries sustained in the accident. In this case, also, as it is already held that the injuries sustained in the accident were the major contributory factor of the death, I find that the claim submitted by respondents 1 to 5 is maintainable as a claim for death. Moreover, the amount awarded in this case is only Rs.1,36,275/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-six thousand two hundred and seventy-five only), which is not a big amount. In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the finding entered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. The appellant is, therefore, directed to deposit the amount along with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal with proportionate cost within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** DG/15.12.23