JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2014 in MVOP No.300 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum – District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short 'the Tribunal'), the claimants have preferred this appeal questioning the order passed by the tribunal dismissing the claim petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP.No.300 of 2012. 3. The claimants filed a petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-for the death of Suryanarayana (hereinafter referred to as deceased), who died in a motor vehicle accident. In the claimant's case, 12.06.2011, in the early hours, the deceased reached Moida bridge bearing No.AP35V9297 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), the auto driver drove the same rashly and negligently at high speed and lost control, resulting in the auto-turned turtle from the road. The deceased sustained fatal injuries on his head and left leg. He was shifted to Dr A.Srirama Murthy Hospital, Vizianagaram. The deceased was treated for 25 days as an inpatient and discharged on the evening of 05.07.2011, and unfortunately, on 06.07.2011 early morning, the deceased died at his house. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 did not put up their contest and remained exparte. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-submitting that there is no nexus between the death of the deceased M. Suryanarayana and his alleged injuries sustained in the accident. 5. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal formulated the necessary issues for consideration. 6. Before the tribunal, on behalf of petitioners, 1 to 4 got examined and marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.X1, X2. On behalf of respondents, RWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.B1 and Exs.X3 to X5. 7. On appreciation of evidence on record, the tribunal finds that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver and the deceased sustained grievous injuries but dismissed the claim petition. On the ground that claimants failed to establish death occurred due to injuries caused in the accident. 8. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently contends that the tribunal erred in concluding that the death of the deceased is not due to an accident, despite finding that the accident was proved and the deceased sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent. 9. 8. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently contends that the tribunal erred in concluding that the death of the deceased is not due to an accident, despite finding that the accident was proved and the deceased sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the observations and findings of the learned tribunal. 10. Now points for consideration are whether there is nexus between the injuries caused to the deceased and his death and whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. POINT : 11. After reading the material on record and submissions made on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, this Court views that there is no dispute that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident held on 12.06.2011. The tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent offending vehicle’s driver is not disputed. The finding given by the tribunal regarding the age of deceased as 50 years is not disputed. The respondent/insurance company has not preferred any appeal or cross-objections questioning the said finding of the tribunal. The learned counsel for both parties addressed arguments only in respect of the tribunal's finding that there is no nexus between the injuries caused to the deceased and the death of the deceased. In view of the same, this Court views that the facts relating to the accident need not be mentioned in detail. 12. The claimants got examined PWs.1 to 4; PW. 1 is the deceased's wife. She is not an eyewitness to the accident. To prove the accident, the petitioners examined PW.2 and relied on Exs.A1, A3 and A4 documents. The offending vehicle’s driver is not examined to speak about the manner of the accident. The main contention of the 3rd respondent is that there is no nexus between the deceased's death and his injuries. The petitioners got examined PW.4 to prove the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment provided to him in the hospital. According to PW.4, who is Orthopedic Surgeon who is running Sri Sai Super Specialty Hospital at Vizianagaram. On 12.06.2011, the injured M. Suryanarayana was admitted to the hospital with multiple fractures. The injured was treated in the hospital as an inpatient for 23 days, and he was discharged on 05.07.2011. According to PW.4, who is Orthopedic Surgeon who is running Sri Sai Super Specialty Hospital at Vizianagaram. On 12.06.2011, the injured M. Suryanarayana was admitted to the hospital with multiple fractures. The injured was treated in the hospital as an inpatient for 23 days, and he was discharged on 05.07.2011. To establish the fact, the petitioners relied on the Ex.A2 wound certificate, which was issued by PW.4, and they also produced Ex.X1 case sheet and Ex.X2 X-ray film. The evidence of PW.4 that the deceased was discharged on 05.07.2011, and died on 06.07.2011, i.e., on the very next day of his discharge, is not in dispute. 13. According to the opinion of PW.4, the injuries mentioned in the Wound certificate may lead to death since the injuries are fatal. PW.4 stated in cross-examination that the condition of the injured at the time of discharge was good, and there was no infection. He admitted that he conducted all tests on the body of the injured and felt that they were normal, and as such, he did not advise the deceased to take treatment from other doctors. The tribunal has considered the version given by PW.4 in the cross-examination. 14. The tribunal observed no nexus between the death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident. The tribunal also observed that had the petitioners reported the deceased's death to the police, police would have taken steps to conduct a postmortem only. 15. According to the case of petitioners, there is ample evidence to show there was an accident in which the deceased sustained injuries to the femur and the deceased were operated on, and metal rods were inserted. At the time of discharge, he was advised to take treatment as an outpatient. The petitioner's case is not disputed by the respondent, and the tribunal has also accepted it. 16. The reading of the order of the tribunal shows that claimants referred to a judgment of the High Court of Madras between Abdul Rahim and another V. Sundaresan and another, 2011 ACJ 2197 . Where the Court concluded with regard to the cause of death without the postmortem examination. In that case, the deceased sustained multiple head injury when he was hit by a car and no postmortem report was conducted. However, the X-ray CT scan showed the injuries were confirmed by the doctor who treated the injured. Where the Court concluded with regard to the cause of death without the postmortem examination. In that case, the deceased sustained multiple head injury when he was hit by a car and no postmortem report was conducted. However, the X-ray CT scan showed the injuries were confirmed by the doctor who treated the injured. The insurance company raised the contention that in the absence of a postmortem report, it cannot be said that the death is due to the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. The tribunal, while considering the said decision, observed that the facts are quite different to this case, he sustained only a fracture to the hip bone, and the tribunal also observed that the deceased had been treated as an inpatient for 23 days. On 05.07.2011, the deceased was discharged from the hospital as his condition was satisfactory. The case sheet shows that right from the time of admission till the date of discharge, the petitioner never suffered any complications. The fracture of the neck of the femur would not result in any death, too, after 23 days after the accident in the ordinary course of nature. 17. As seen from the deposition of PW.4, he conducted surgery and inserted metal rods which caused the infection to the heart. In the cross-examination of PW.4, he stated that he could not say whether the patient died due to injuries or any other problem. It is not the case of the respondent/insurance company that the deceased had suffered from other ailments rather than injuries sustained in the accident. The tribunal observed that no information was provided by the doctor stating that injuries sustained by the deceased, i.e., fracture of the femur, would result in the deceased's death. 18. The tribunal ignored the evidence of PW.4 in the chief examination that the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate may lead to death since the injuries sustained by the injured are fatal. The tribunal also observed that the death might have been caused by heart or brain failure for some time undetected reason. 19. In a decision, Ramathal and others v. Managing Director, Cheran Transport Corporation, Coimbatore, AIR 2004 SC 3445 . It is observed that it is not in dispute that the deceased was taken treated as an indoor patient in Government Hospital at Alladam from 14.01.1991 to 21.01.1991; he died there. 19. In a decision, Ramathal and others v. Managing Director, Cheran Transport Corporation, Coimbatore, AIR 2004 SC 3445 . It is observed that it is not in dispute that the deceased was taken treated as an indoor patient in Government Hospital at Alladam from 14.01.1991 to 21.01.1991; he died there. The doctor examined on behalf of the claimant and categorically stated that the accident might have been the result of the cause of death of the deceased. The respondent did not bring any material on record to show that there was no link between accident and death. The finding of the High Court that the cause of death is not attributable to the accident does not appear to be based on any material on record. 20. In the case Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd, AIR 1997 Delhi 201, wherein it is stated as follows: "128. In words & Phrases, Permanent Edn Vol. 21 at page 448 injury causing death" has been defined as: "If an employee but for an injury would not have died at the time of which and in the way in which he did die the accident. However, it merely hastened a deep-seated disorder that is regarded as resulting in an "injury causing death" within the Workmen’s Compensation Act." 129. Death resulting from injury" has been defined in Vol. XI page 46-47 (CAPP) ibid as follows: "Death resulting from an injury covers cases in which an injury aggravates or accelerates an existing condition so that death ensues earlier than it would in the ordinary course, even though the existing condition would have ultimately resulted fatally". 130. In Penney v. Pointers Transport Services Ltd., 1952 (2) All England Law Reports 307 relying on Re: Polemis & Furnace, 1921 (3) KB 560, 577, LORD PILCHER has said: "if death is directly traceable to the injury in the accident for which the defendants are responsible, the chain of causation is not broken". 131. In plain words, if an injury hastens or accelerates the death, directly and not remotely, then in law, the injury in one causing or resulting" in death." 21. In Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, the law of torts speaks about the connection between the act and death. Chapter "1. Is related to Damages", In deciding whether the damage was caused by the wrongful act, the generally accepted test is known as but for the test. In Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, the law of torts speaks about the connection between the act and death. Chapter "1. Is related to Damages", In deciding whether the damage was caused by the wrongful act, the generally accepted test is known as but for the test. This means that if the damage did not result from the defendant's wrongful act, it would be taken to have been caused by the wrongful act. Conversely, it means that the defendant's wrongful act is not a cause of the damage if the same would have happened, just the same wrongful act or no wrongful act. 22. In a decision, the Principal Director, Electronic Services and training and another Vs. Sarojini Devi, 2020 ACJ 252. In the said case, admittedly, the deceased was employed as a driver, and the appellant preferred to appeal against the workers' compensation. The claimant's specific case is that due to excessive workload, i.e., driving, the deceased suffered a severe heart attack which reins his death. It is also the specific case of the claimant that the death has occurred during and in the course of employment. In the facts of the case, the High Court observed that the deceased suffered a heart attack due to the stress and strain of his job, and his death arose out of the employment. 23. In a decision between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs Jarina Begum and others, 2020 ACJ 591 , the Delhi High court held that "forcing an unwell person to go on outstation duty would have caused immense stress and strain which would have aggravated the illness suffered by the deceased and resulted in his death; therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to the compensation from appellant". 24. Though the said citations have no bearing on deciding the matter in issue, this Court views that principle laid down therein can be made applicable when there is no direct evidence to establish the cause of death by conducting a postmortem examination, the surrounding circumstances that established can be taken into consideration as the Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation. 25. In Khairullah @ Babu, Lorry Driver Vs. Anita @ Amruthalal Patel, 1994 ACJ 1017 . 25. In Khairullah @ Babu, Lorry Driver Vs. Anita @ Amruthalal Patel, 1994 ACJ 1017 . The Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in following facts of the case that the injured had taken treatment for 25 days after the accident, but no postmortem was done, it was held that the accident could be regarded as the cause of death from the death certificate. As well as the evidence of the public witness. The failure of doctors to either perform a postmortem or the same being issued by the hospital for any reason could not be grounds to deny the compensation claim. 26. Even otherwise, the tribunal held that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident; he sustained a fracture of the neck of the femur, and the evidence of PW.4 disclosed that the injured took treatment in the hospital as an inpatient for 23 days. The evidence of PW.4 shows that the injured was admitted to the hospital with multiple fractures sustained by him in the accident. He conducted the surgery, and he inserted metal rods which caused the infection in the heart. On the next day of discharge from the hospital, he died. The said facts are not disputed by either side. Even if the tribunal accepted the petitioner's case, this Court finds that the tribunal at least should have awarded compensation considering the nature of his injuries and the expenses incurred by the deceased and his family members. But the tribunal has not made such an effort. 27. Coming to the facts of the case, immediately after discharge from the hospital after undergoing 23 days as an inpatient, the deceased died the next day. Though no postmortem examination was conducted, the possibility of such death due to sufferance undergone by the deceased because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident cannot be ruled out. It is not the respondents case that the deceased had suffered from any other ailments other than the injuries sustained in the accident simply because on the next day of discharge from the hospital, it cannot be concluded that the injuries he sustained have no nexus to the death of the deceased. Particularly as PW.4 deposed that the injuries sustained by the petitioner caused the infection of the deceased's heart. Particularly as PW.4 deposed that the injuries sustained by the petitioner caused the infection of the deceased's heart. The insurance company has not placed any evidence before the Court to show that there was no link between the accident and the death of the deceased as observed in the decision referred supra AIR 2004 SC 3445 . 28. In the said circumstances, the tribunal's finding that the death is not attributable to the accident does not appear to be based on any material on record. The injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident might have hastened or accelerated the death directly ; it can be construed that the injury is caused, resulting in the death. 29. For the stated reasons, this Court views that the findings given by the tribunal in this regard are liable to be set aside. So far as the quantum of compensation amount is concerned, the tribunal has made some observations though compensation is not awarded. As already noted, it is an application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. Based on the evidence on record, the deceased's income is fixed notionally at Rs.100/-per day by the tribunal. Considering the strength of the family members, the tribunal 1/3rd observed that income of the deceased can be deducted towards personal expenses and applied the appropriate multiplier. By taking note of the age of the deceased the tribunal applied the multiplier ‘11’, this Court views that the claimants are entitled to compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/-as claimed in the claim petition with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 30. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed without costs by awarding compensation amount with interest at 7.5% per annum with the following apportionment. As seen from the petition averments, the 1st petitioner is the wife of the petitioners 3 and 5 are the unmarried daughters of the deceased, and the other petitioners are majors. In the facts of the case, this Court views that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-shall be awarded to the 1st petitioner with accrued interest on the entire compensation amount. Petitioners 3 and 5 are entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.35,000/-each. The other petitioners are entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.15,000/-each. In the facts of the case, this Court views that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-shall be awarded to the 1st petitioner with accrued interest on the entire compensation amount. Petitioners 3 and 5 are entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.35,000/-each. The other petitioners are entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.15,000/-each. The insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount before the tribunal within two months from the date of this order. The petitioners are entitled to the said amount as apportioned and withdraw the same by filing the petition before the tribunal.