JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 18.07.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.2092 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge No.2, Salem.) 1. The Insurance company has filed the above appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal below on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in treating the death of the original petitioner as one on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident when no nexus between injuries and the death has been shown. In order to appreciate the above contention, it is necessary to briefly touch upon the facts which culminated in the filing of this Appeal. The parties are referred to in the same rank as before the Tribunal. 2. The original petitioner one Mahendran had filed M.C.O.P.No.2092 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 07.05.2016. 3. The said Mahendran was claimed to be running a Mess and earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. The said Mahendran was 43 years of age at the time of the accident. On 07.05.2016, he was traveling in a Car bearing TN 30 BA 7888 along with his friends, namely, N.Rajendran and N.Dhanapal from Thiruchendur to Salem. The said Car was driven by one Donkay, who was the owner cum driver of the car. The said Donkay was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the Dindukkal - Karur NH7 road. 4. While the car was being so driven and as the car reached Puthampur Tex Park, at about 12.45 P.M, a street dog suddenly crossed the road and the 1st respondent immediately applied the brake, as a result of which he had lost control over the car and the same had overturned and capsized on the left side of the road. On account of this accident, the said Mahendran had sustained the bleeding injuries at (i) The chin 2) Left Zygoma 3) Right Foot 1st Toe 4) Left Back 5) Left Leg below knee and he has sustained grievous fracture injuries at 1) Right leg Tibia Bone Fracture 2) Right leg Fibula bone Fracture. 5. Therefore, the said Mahendran had filed the above petition. 5. Therefore, the said Mahendran had filed the above petition. Pending the petition, the said Mahendran had died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The legal representatives of the said Mahendran had filed an amendment petition in which they had contended that despite the continuous treatment, the said Mahendran had died on account of “Septicemia” for the non healing of the wound in the right leg. By reason of this, the said Mahendran had sustained an attack. 6. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company alone had contested the claim stating that there is no document provided to show that the death was on account of the accident and the Insurance Company would submit that the invocation of principle “Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona” would not be applicable to the instant case as there is nothing to show that the death was on account of the injuries particularly when the death had taken place a year after the accident. 7. The 2nd respondent would submit that the death was not on account of the injury sustained by the original petitioner in the accident. 8. The Tribunal on considering the evidence on record held that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent and considering the fact that the death was on account of the injuries a sum of Rs.15,75,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of monetary benefits. Ultimately, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of a sum of Rs.19,20,323/-. 9. The Insurance company has come by way of an appeal only on the ground that there is no proof to show that the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident was the cause of the death. When the matter came up for admission the petitioners had entered appearance. 10. Mr.A.Dhiruvayanathan, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would vehemently argue that there is nothing to show nexus between the injuries and the death, particularly when the death has occurred after a year of the accident. 11. The learned counsel would submit that the nature of injuries would clearly show that the injuries could never be the cause of the death. 12. 11. The learned counsel would submit that the nature of injuries would clearly show that the injuries could never be the cause of the death. 12. Per contra, Mrs.Ramya V.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the death summary and the evidence in cross of R.W.1 examined on the side of the Insurance Company wherein has admitted as follows would prove the nexus : 13. Therefore the contention of the Insurance Company that there is no nexus between injuries and the death stands disproved. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 14. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2092 of 2016. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.