BY AD v. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB

not specifically consider the contention raised by the appellant to the effect that the death of the deceased was not due to the injuries sustained in the accident and proceeded to determine the compensation by treating the said application as the one for compensation for the death due to the injuries in the accident. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.5,66,000/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the appellant herein with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. This appeal is submitted by the appellant in such circumstances challenging the award passed by the MACA.No.1473/2012 5 Tribunal, in which the compensation was determined, treating the claim as the one for the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident.

5. Heard Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Even though notices were served to the respondents through paper publication, there is no appearance for them.

6. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there are absolutely no materials to show that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. After perusing the records, I find some force in the said contention. It is to be noted that the accident was on

24.03.2005 and the death was on 12.03.2006; i.e. after almost one year. The injuries sustained to the deceased are extracted in the claim petition, which are as follows: “1) Abrasion over (R) elbow 2) Abrasion over (R) foot 3) Abrasion over back 4) Pain over head and chest 5) Contusion cervical spine region 6) Contusion and abrasion all over body” MACA.No.1473/2012 6

7. Ext.A4 is the wound certificate and Ext.A7 is the discharge summary. Both the said documents would indicate that no serious injuries were sustained by the deceased due to the accident. When she was brought to the hospital, she was conscious and oriented. In the discharge summary, it was observed that there was no history of vomiting. Thus, it is evident from the medical records that the injuries sustained to the deceased were abrasions and contusions and no injuries which could have resulted in the death of the deceased were noted. The death occurred after a period of one year. Ext.A4 and A7 are the only documents relating to the treatment provided to the deceased in connection with the said accident, and under no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the injuries mentioned therein would result in the death of the deceased. Apart from the said document, no other documents are available showing the actual cause of death of the deceased. No postmortem was also seen conducted. Thus, when considering all the relevant aspects, i.e., minor nature of the injuries as is discernible from Ext.A4 and A7, the period of almost one year between the date of the accident and the death and the lack of any postmortem report or MACA.No.1473/2012 7 any other documents indicating any link between the death of the deceased and the injuries in the accident, I am of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal treating the claim petition as the one for death due to the injuries in the accident was not proper and hence it requires interference. This is particularly because, when the time gap between the date of the accident and the death is longer, the Tribunal ought to have cautiously taken note of the nature of the injuries and the possible impact of such injuries to find out whether the death was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. In this case, despite the fact that the specific contention raised by the appellant in the written statement contending that the death was not due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the Tribunal did not consider the said aspect and there is absolutely no observation or finding in the award about this. After carefully going through the records, I am unable to find any link between the injuries and the death that occurred after one year. Therefore, I am of the view that the claim petition cannot be treated as the one for the death due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Instead, it has to be treated as a case of personal injuries. Therefore, the award passed by the MACA.No.1473/2012 8 Tribunal by which the quantum of compensation was fixed by treating it as a case of death is liable to be interfered and it is ordered accordingly.

8. Thus, the claim petition has to be treated as one for personal injuries. It is evident from the records that the deceased sustained injuries in a motor accident that occurred on

24.03.2005. According to the claimants, she was a coolie with a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to accept her monthly income as Rs.5,000/-. She was 33 years old at the time of the accident. There is no evidence showing any physical disability, and as mentioned above, the injuries are only abrasions and contusions. The period of hospitalization was only six days, and there was no evidence of further treatment, also. In such circumstances, taking note of the entire aspects, the quantum of compensation is fixed in the following manner. Head Amount Loss of earnings (4 months) Rs.20,000/- (5000x4) Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- MACA.No.1473/2012 9 Transport to hospital Rs.1,000/- Extra nourishment and loss of clothing Rs.1,000/- Loss of amenities Medical expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- TOTAL Rs.52,000/- In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, this appeal is allowed. The award passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(MV).No.1715 of 2006 is hereby set aside to the extent the quantification of the compensation was made by treating the claim petition as one for death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is held that the death of the deceased was not due to the injuries sustained in the accident and therefore, the claim petition was treated as one for personal injuries sustained by the deceased Muthulakshmi. The quantum of compensation is fixed as Rs.52,000/- (Rupees fifty two thousand only) and the said amount shall be deposited by the appellant Insurance Company with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. It is clarified that, at this juncture, the MACA.No.1473/2012 10 learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that, as a condition while granting stay, they have already deposited 35% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is clarified that the appellant shall be entitled to get the excess amount, if any, after deducting the amount awarded by this court, released. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/6.1.24