Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 629 (JK)

Oriental Insurance Co. v. Samitra Devi

2016-12-06

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ramalingam Sudhakar, J. This appeal is of the year 2008. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the quantum primarily on the plea that it is a claim for injury which has subsequently amended as a claim for death as the claimant died in the meanwhile. 3. The Tribunal has not taken pains to properly analyse the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the death occurred due to injury suffered in the accident. Alleging vagueness in the award and pleading that it is bereft of material and improper appreciation of evidence, the appeal had been filed by the Insurance Company to decline compensation for the claim of death said to be caused due to the accident. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the claimant and having perused the material relied upon including the pleading and oral evidence it appears that the plea is unsustainable. Had the Tribunal applied its mind and sifted through the relevant evidence, the agony of the claimants would not have come this far the perfunctory orders passed by the Tribunal have created an opportunity for filing the appeal. 5. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(s) should have analysed the evidence and discussed the issue and draw a reasoned conclusion on the issues framed. This will avoid unnecessary litigation by way of appeal. If there is clarity in the order of Tribunal there is no need for Insurance Company or the aggrieved person to file an appeal. 6. The present appeal has been filed because the issues have not been discussed based on evidence. It lacks reasons. The appellant is justified in making such a plea. 7. Accident in this case happened on 2.4.2000, a 60 years' old agriculturist, daily wage labourer also stated to be a mason was travelling in the bus insured with the appellant, when the bus turned turtle. Several persons suffered injuries and many died. One such person is the injured in the present case who subsequently died. Initially he suffered compression fracture and other serious injuries to his bladder and other parts of his body. He was taken to the hospital on the same day and was discharged after some time on 19-5-2000. Several persons suffered injuries and many died. One such person is the injured in the present case who subsequently died. Initially he suffered compression fracture and other serious injuries to his bladder and other parts of his body. He was taken to the hospital on the same day and was discharged after some time on 19-5-2000. The injured a poor man hailing from a remote area of Jammu province, remained at home for long period of time and was taking treatment on and off. This is the pleading and evidence on record. From the evidence of the Doctor, namely, Dr. M.A. Tariq examined on behalf of the claimants, it appears that due to the injury that he suffered on 2-4-2000 which never healed, the health of the injured person deteriorated slowly and finally he died on 19-11-2002. Dr. M.A. Tariq, was examined to prove the cause of death and it is not rebutted by the Insurance as false. 8. Unfortunately the evidence of the Doctor has not been recorded by the Tribunal. The original records show that claimants endeavored to examine the Doctor and he was cross-examined also. The appellant-Insurance Company has not been able to contradict the evidence adduced. If this would have been a part of the award which the Presiding Officer t ailed to record then there will be no confusion. The Certificate of the Doctor dated 1.11.2000 alone has been recorded in the award but evidence has been overlooked. The evidence is crucial to the case of the claimants. 9. The most important aspect of the case is the evidence of Doctor who speaks about the cause of death as due to the injury in the accident. However, after verifying the original records, this Court finds no reason to take a different view except to affirm the finding that the death was due to the injury caused on 2-4-2000. Though there is a time gap between the date of accident and the date of death. In this view of the matter, plea of vagueness in the award does not merit consideration. It will not disentitle the claimants to seek just compensation on the death of the injured person. 10. The Claims Tribunal has granted Rs. 3,88,056/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. Taking note of the age of the deceased, his occupation and the income fixed, which is not in excessive. It will not disentitle the claimants to seek just compensation on the death of the injured person. 10. The Claims Tribunal has granted Rs. 3,88,056/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. Taking note of the age of the deceased, his occupation and the income fixed, which is not in excessive. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly stated that there is no serious objection on the quantum as also the interest. 11. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Appellants are directed to deposit the award within eight weeks and the claimants can withdraw the same.