£. ^'" BEPORE : THE HON*BLE HIGH GOURI OF JUDICATURB Svislon M.A.^'^^004 CHHATTISGABH, BILASPUR. (APPEAL UNDER SEGTION 173M.V.AGa?.VAl<UE©AT Rs.6,00, Appellants Bench S.B, yApplicants ^-POR ENHANCgMEN :-4, Nanoj Kumar S/o Late Shri Mangilal Balha ^ . aged about 30 years, •'v^ •^ 2. Aashlsh Kumar S/o La-be Shri Nangilal Bafna /' Both residents of Doundl Lohara, Distrlct Durg (C.G.) VE RS U S ^•«:: Respondents ; 1/,cManish Kumar Rajput s/o J.S.Rajput, //.^aged about 22years, resid^nt^of Rajapara, ion-appJ.ioani;s / ^&Sundi~L ohara, "BIstt. i)urg~ Cc." G.~) ..^ river o£ Jeep No. 24CG-0174) l^ Santosh Kumar Jain s/o Gerrimal Jain, aged about 32 years, c/o Arihant Agency^ Main road, Doundi Lohara, Disti;«Durg(CG) A> \^? .' ^-<-.^ f^-^^1' .y^ aged about 32 years, c/o Arihant Agency, >^!y,i^'Y 3viain road>Doundi Lohara'_Dist'c< ^'<^JQ^\ ( Gwner of Jeep No.24GC-0174) ^'..'<'K/-7' ..x^,cP\vv Q^ 3^ Ihe Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,through l^^v. .•'' '5 // Divisional Nanager, 0,I.C,Ltd., y^ 7 Malviya Nagar, Durg (C.G. ^^' (Insurer of Jeep No.24QC-0174) ./ ^^ APPEAL U/s.173 Of THE MOTOB VEHICLES ACT,1988AGAINST THE AWArlD BATED 18^3.2004' PASSED BY M^.C. T..RAJNANDGAON. IN CLA3M CASE N0.527^00 RELATING 10 MANOkI KWAR & JUMOTHER VERSUS MANl'SH - .^" ,K IAH & 2 01HERS, VALUED AT Rs. @, ®0^©QG^-FOR ENHAN€;EMmT ll':"l HSGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTiSGARH: BILASPUR (DivisioR Bench) -~i. ^. CORAM: Hon'ble Shri A.K.Patnaik, CJ & Hon'bte Shri Dhjrendra Mishra, J. MISC. APPEAL N0.507 OF 2004 Manoj Kumar andanother Appellants Versus Manish KumarRajput and others Rsspondents t. ''^^:. ..-.^. ^ Present: Mr.YashwantTJwari.JeamedcounseIfortheappeIJants. Mr. Avinash Mishra, Searned counse! for respondent No. 3/ insurance Company. 0 RD E R (Passed on 16tnAugust2005) The foitowsng oral order of the Court was passed by A.K.Patnaik,CJ:- This is an appeal againstthe order dated 18.03.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon m CSaim Cass No. 32/2000, filed under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehides Act, 1988. 2. The facts in brief are that on 28.11.1997 at about 9.00 p.m. Mangi'a! was trave'ing in a Jeep bearing registration No. 24 G. C. 0174 whjch was being driven by respondent No 1. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the Jeep and respondent No. 3 is the insurer. The said Jeep dashed against a standsng truck and as a resu!t of the accjdent Mangiial suffsred soms injuries. After treatment sn the District Hospita!, Rajnandgaon fortwo days and thereafter m -Soubhaghya Hospita!, Durg for about a month, he returned home and died on 11.02.1998. The appellants, the ts^o major sons of deceased Mangjlat, filed the aforesaid "c^ - -2-- <... 1 p^ <-, cjaim case before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal held in the impugned award that the appe!lante have not been able to establish a nexus between the injuries suffered by the deceased in the said accident and hss death and accordingly dismissed the claim case filed by the appel!ants. 3. Mr. Yashwant Tiwari, learned counset for the appeHants submits that it will be clear from the evidence of Ayun/edic Doctor, Dr. P.S. Bhaghel, who was examined as A.W.1, that the deceased after return from Soubhaghya Hospitai, Durg was under his treatment at home. He submite that from the evidence of A.W. 1 it js dear that the deceased was complajning of pain in his chest and stomach and uftimatejy d'ed due to fai'ure of his kidney and iiver. He further submits that it is a!so evident from ths evidence of A.W. 1 that the sntemai organs of the deceased nameiy iiver and kidney were damaged on account of the sasd acdctent. He further argyed that on account of overdoses of medicines taken by the deceased whi'e he was under treatmsnt at Soubhashya Hospita!, Durg, his kidney was damaged and he died. He cited the decision of Gujarat High Court reported in 1992 ACJ 321 in Shanta Ben Vs. Valii Bhai (Gu'srat H.C.. D.B.} in which the Tribuna! had rejected the claim appjication on the ground that there was no nexus between the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident and death of the deceased but the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and held that the deceased died on account of the development of fat embolism due to the fracture injuries suffered by him in the accjdent. He also relied on the dedsjon of Gujarat High Court reported in 2003(!t) Accident Claims Case 288 (Qujarat), High Court Gujarat, 'n Guiarat State Transoort Comorats'on Vs. Manvambaf A. Aadamii fdead) throuah heir and leaaf representatiye Zubeda Abdul Hab'sb ansS another. 4. Mr. Avinash Mishra, learned counsel for appearing for the respondent No. 3/Insurance C-ompany, on the other hand, submits that the Tribuna! was right in coming to the conclusion that the appellants have not been able to establish the linkage betveen the mjuries suffered in the accident and the death of the deceased and therefore it is not a frt case in which the High Court should interfere with the impugned award of Tribuna! rejecting the c!aims of the appellants. He further submits that in any case the appellants who were major sons of the deceased, wers not depsndent ^>" - 3- L ..4y on him and as such they are not entitled for any compensatiQn. He cited the decision of M.P. High Court reported in 2005(2} T.A.C.236 fM.P.l in the matter of Champabai and others Vs. Baioai' Road Llnes and others, in support of his contention that major sons are not entstled to any compensatton. 5. We have perused the aforesaid decss'on of the M.P. High Court in Champabai and other Vs. Bajpas Road Lsnes and Others (Supra) and we find that in the said case, the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 7Q,QOO/- to the widow of the deceased and found that the other ciaimants who were major sons of the deceased were not dependent upon him and therefors, were not entitled to receive any compensatjon. The widow as well as the major sons preferred an appea! for enhancement of compensation before the High Court and the Hjgh Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2.20,000/- sn favour of the widow. !n the aforesaid decision, the High Court has not recorded a finding as to whether major sons would not be entitled to compensation in the absence ofthe widow of the deceased. Under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a lega! representat've can file an application for compensation and hence, an appiication for compensation wouid be maintainab'e at the instence of major sons of the deceased who has died in. a motor accident. As to what wou!d be the amount of compensation payable to the major sons who were not dependents on the deceased, however, wou!d be a matter for determination by the Tribunal on the facts and circumstences of each case. S. Coming to the contention of Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants that A.W. 1, the Ayur/edic Doctor, who had treated the deceased at the residence of the deceased, in his evidence has proved the linkage betA'een the injuries caused in the accident and the death, we find on reading of evidence of A.W. 1 that the deceassd ultimately died on account of failure of his kidney and liver and the Jiver and the kidney of the deceased may or may not have been affectsd by the injuries in the said accident. !t appears from the evidence that the deceased soon after the sajd accident was admitted in the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon and thereafter was admitted in Soubhaghya Hosiptai, Durg where he undem'ent treatment for about a month. The doctors of the DJstrict -^- C, -^ c, t^' ^ Hospita!, Rajnandgaon and Soubhaghya Hospitai, Durg are material witnesses who could have deposed beforethe Tribunal about the kind of injuries the deceased suffered and as to whether on account of said injuriss, the !iver and kidney ofthe deceased could in anyway be affected. The doctor of the District Hospita!, Rajnandgaon and Soubhaghya Hosiptal, Durg could also throw some light on the nature of the treatmer't that was given to the deceased including the medicines that were administered to him and could also show as to whether the overdoses of the medjcines giyen to the deceased. if any, could affect his liver and kidney. But unfQrtunateSy, the doctors of neither Dsstrict Hospital, Rajnandgaon nor of Soubhaghya Hospita!, Durg have been examined in this case. !n the two cases cited by Mr. Tiwari, Jearned counsel for the appe'Jants, the Hi'gh Court after going through the evidence of the doctors whowere examined at length came to the conclusion that there was some nexus between the injuries suffered in the accident and the death of the deceased but sn the present case, we find no materia! to amve at such a finding. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned award of the Tribuna! and remand the matter to the Tribunal for giving an opportunsty to the appeJJants to sxamine the doctors and adduce other evidence to estabiish that there was in fact a linkage between the injuriss suffered 'n Wll the accident by the deceased and his death. The Tribunal^do welt to complete enquiry and make a fresh award within six months from the date of receipt of the records from this Court. The appeltants and the rospondsnts wiil appear before the Tribuna! on OQth September, 2005 when the Tribuna! wil! either teke up the hearing of the case on that date or fjx some other date as per his convenience. Sd/- . Chief Justice Sd/- DfflRENDRA MISHRA Judge F