JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Shekhar Siddharth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.07.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge-I, Chatra in Motor Accident Claim Case No.28 of 2021. 3. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the claim case was instituted by the claimants alleging therein that on 17.04.2021 at about 1:00 PM after purchasing medicine, Prince Kumar Singh was coming from Simariya market to his home and in the meantime at the place of occurrence a Hywa Truck bearing No. JH-13G- 4073 which was coming from opposite side in a very rash and negligent manner dashed Prince Kumar Singh as a result Prince Kumar Singh was grievously injured. It was further asserted that he was admitted in Referral Hospital, Simariya but due to seriousness, he was referred to specialized hospital. Again, he was admitted in Samford Super Specialty Hospital, Ranchi where he was admitted on 17.04.2021 by the doctor of Samford Super Specialty Hospital but Prince Kumar Singh did not regain his consciousness in spite of spending huge amount for treatment and ultimately on 25.04.2021, Prince Kumar Singh died. It was further alleged that the said deceased during treatment had been infected with corona and as such his postmortem was also not performed. On the basis of written report of informant i.e. Santosh Singh, father of deceased, Simariya P.S. Case No.56 of 2021 under Sections 279 , 337, 338, 304(A) of INDIAN PENAL CODE was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Hywa Truck bearing registration No. JH – 13G – 4073. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.18,30,146/- that is not in accordance with law. He further submits that in the claim application only claim was made of Rs.15,00,000/- however, Rs.18,30,146/- was allowed by the learned Tribunal. He further assailed the award on the ground that the postmortem was not done and in view of that it was a great lacuna in allowing the claim by the Tribunal. He further submits that in the claim application only claim was made of Rs.15,00,000/- however, Rs.18,30,146/- was allowed by the learned Tribunal. He further assailed the award on the ground that the postmortem was not done and in view of that it was a great lacuna in allowing the claim by the Tribunal. According to him, the age of the child was 14 years, however, monthly income has been assessed to Rs.10,000/- which is also unbelievable. On this ground, he submits that this appeal has been preferred and in view of that the award may kindly be modified. 5. Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposes the prayer and submits that the deceased was aged about 14 years and the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal has decided the income of the deceased on the notional basis and for that he has applied the multiplier of the Minimum Wages Act. He submits that there is no illegality in that. On the point of postmortem, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that since in course of treatment Covid-19 was also infected with the deceased and in view of that the postmortem was not made. He submits that however the charge-sheet has been submitted which has been marked as Exhibit – 3 stating that the death has occurred due to accident. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the vehicle in question submits that the vehicle was insured and the other documents of the vehicle was in order and in view of that the learned Tribunal has not fastened any liability upon the owner of the vehicle in question. 7. In light of the charge-sheet Exhibit – 3, the death due to accident has been proved. It is further an admitted position that after the accident the deceased was treated in the Referral Hospital, Simariya and thereafter he was transferred to Samford Super Specialty Hospital, Ranchi. The medical bills further proves that the accident took place and the deceased was being treated. 8. The non-availability of postmortem report will not defeat the case of the claimants as has been held by Madras High Court in Abdul Rahim v. Sundaresan in C.M.A. (MP) No.898 of 2008 decided on 30.07.2009. The medical bills further proves that the accident took place and the deceased was being treated. 8. The non-availability of postmortem report will not defeat the case of the claimants as has been held by Madras High Court in Abdul Rahim v. Sundaresan in C.M.A. (MP) No.898 of 2008 decided on 30.07.2009. In the said case reliance was placed upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd. , AIR 1997 Del 201 , wherein it has been held as under :- “ 9. The counsel also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in 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 under: “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 though it merely hastened a deep-seated disorder 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 Pegney v. Pointers Transport Services Ltd., 1952 (2) All England Law Reports 307 relying on Re: Polemis & Furnace, 1921 (3) KB 560, 577 LORD PILHER 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.” By relying upon those paragraphs, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that any injury which forms the nucleus resulting in a death, has to be taken as cause for the death. 9. In light of above, the contention of the insurance company of postmortem report with regard to the Covid – 19 is not being accepted by this Court. 10. 9. In light of above, the contention of the insurance company of postmortem report with regard to the Covid – 19 is not being accepted by this Court. 10. The Court finds that the learned Tribunal has not believed only on the assertion about the income to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, he has calculated the income on the notional basis and in doing the same the Tribunal has rightly done so. 11. From the claim petition, it transpires that the compensation was claimed to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- and for treatment the compensation was prayed for Rs.7,00,000/-. In view of the claim made by the claimants on two heads, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant with regard to the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- only is also not tenable. 12. In view of the above discussion, non-filing of the postmortem report the claim of the claimants can’t be rejected and the notional income was taken by the learned Tribunal for deciding the income, as such there is no illegality in that. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 13. The statutory amount deposited before this Court by the insurance company shall be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal which will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the claimants. 14. Let the trial court record be sent back to the learned Tribunal forth with.