Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1248 (HP)

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekha Devi

2015-09-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 18th March, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.3 of 2004, titled Rekha Devi vs. M/s HIM Cylinders Ltd. and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,62,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization, came to the awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer/appellant was saddled with the liability, (for short the impugned award). 2. The owner, the driver and the claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. The insurer/appellant has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The appellant/insurer has challenged the impugned award on two grounds. The first ground was that the accident had taken place on 1st August, 2003 and the injured, namely, Chaman Lal Dubey, died on 3rd July, 2005, thus, there was no nexus between the injuries and the cause of death and that the death was natural and the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that the death was the outcome of the vehicular accident. The next ground urged was that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake. 5. Thus, in the present appeal, only above two points are to be determined, which relate to issues No.1, 5 and 6. 6. Before I deal with the plea of fake licence, I deem it proper to decide whether there is nexus between the cause of death and the accident which occurred on 1st August, 2003, in which the deceased sustained injuries. 7. I have gone through the record of the case. 8. FIR bearing No.476 was registered at Police Station, Una, which has been proved on record as Ext.PW-1/A and the charge-sheet was presented before the Judicial Magistrate. Exts.PW-3/C, PW-3/D, PW-3/E and PW-3/F do disclose that the deceased remained on leave from office for a considerable long period immediately after the accident. 9. The medical certificate regarding the cause of death has been proved on record as Ext. PX. The Claimants examined PW-7 Dr. Manoj Kapoor, who treated the deceased on 1st August, 2003, immediately after the accident. Exts.PW-3/C, PW-3/D, PW-3/E and PW-3/F do disclose that the deceased remained on leave from office for a considerable long period immediately after the accident. 9. The medical certificate regarding the cause of death has been proved on record as Ext. PX. The Claimants examined PW-7 Dr. Manoj Kapoor, who treated the deceased on 1st August, 2003, immediately after the accident. This witness has stated that the cause of death, as mentioned in the certificate Ext. PX, is possible due to the injuries mentioned in the MLC. The Tribunal has rightly discussed the evidence in paragraph 15 of the impugned award, which is reproduced hereunder: “15. In order to prove the fact that the injured died due to these injuries, the claimants have produced Dr. Manoj Kapoor as PW7. This witness on 1.8.2003 medically examined Chaman Lal Dubey and found four injuries on his person. Perusal of the injuries as explained by this witness in his examination-in-chief shows that the deceased suffered crush injuries. Document Ext. PX has been shown to the doctor by the ld. Counsel for the claimants in order to seek his opinion regarding the cause of death, and this witness has stated that the cause of death as mentioned in the death certificate Ext. PX could be possible with the injuries given in the MLC and he further stated that although the death has happened after two years, but according to him it is possible for the patient to proceed to the state of affairs as shown in Ext. PX. Although, this document Et. PX was objected to by the ld. counsel for the respondents, but it is settled law that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, are summary in nature and the strict rules of evidence are not applicable. No doubt, there is no post-mortem report on the file nor the same was conducted by the doctors at PGI, Chandigarh. However, this fact is not fatal for the case of the claimants. Keeping in view the injuries mentioned by the Dr. Manoj Kumar in MLC Ext. PW7/A the deceased suffered crush injuries and in document Ext. PX, the immediate cause has been mentioned as Cardio Respiratory Arrest with septic shock raised intracranial tension. In the said document, it has been further mentioned that the antecedent cause for the death was type II diabetes Mellitvs Essential Hypertension. Manoj Kumar in MLC Ext. PW7/A the deceased suffered crush injuries and in document Ext. PX, the immediate cause has been mentioned as Cardio Respiratory Arrest with septic shock raised intracranial tension. In the said document, it has been further mentioned that the antecedent cause for the death was type II diabetes Mellitvs Essential Hypertension. According to this document, the manner of death has been mentioned as natural, but merely mentioning this fact that the manner of death is natural is not sufficient especially when the immediate cause of death has been shown as cardio respiratory arrest due to septic shock raised intracranial tension. It is a kind of septicemia and in crush injuries such complications could be possible. There is direct nexus between the death and injuries suffered by Chaman Lal Dubey in a roadside accident. It is not the case of the respondents that after this accident, the deceased suffered injuries in any other manner. Ld. counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 drew the attention of this Tribunal towards the deposition of PW7 as in his cross-examination this witness has deposed that death cannot be a sequel to the injuries suffered by the injured once cured, but at the same time, he voluntarily stated that there is no possibility about the fact that the injuries were fully cured. The statement of the widow of the deceased in the present case inspires confidence and it cannot be disbelieve in the absence of other evidence to suggest death for any other reason. No doubt in Ext. PX the manner of death has been mentioned as natural, but keeping in view the immediate cause as given in Ext. PX, the deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest septic shock raised intracranial tension which is the shock caused due to the crush injury suffered by the victim on 1.8.2003. The testimony of PW-7 Dr. Manoj Kapoor qua his opinion as mentioned in the death certificate Ext. PX cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that the document Ext. PX has not been proved. Moreover, in the present case PW-3 proved documents Ext.PW3/C to PW3/F. The perusal of the same shows that Chaman Lal Dubey remained on medical leave as well as on special disability leave. PX cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that the document Ext. PX has not been proved. Moreover, in the present case PW-3 proved documents Ext.PW3/C to PW3/F. The perusal of the same shows that Chaman Lal Dubey remained on medical leave as well as on special disability leave. This fact also falsify the stand taken by the respondents 1 and 2 in the present case that the deceased has not died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court reported as 2007 ACJ 1329 titled as Habibnur Khan and Ors. vs. Govind Singh & Anr., an inescapable conclusion can be drawn in the present case is that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him on 1.8.2003 in an road side accident.” 10. While going through the documents on record, one comes to inescapable conclusion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are well founded and need no interference. Thus, the first point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected being not tenable. 11. The second point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant relates to the fake licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. There is nothing on the file which could be made basis for holding that the driving licence was fake. However, the Tribunal has recorded findings on issue No.5, which, unfortunately, have not been challenged by the other side. 12. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach, which he has not done in terms of the decisions of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531 and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217. 13. Having said so, no interference is required in the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the insurer was rightly saddled with the liability. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is dismissed.