FAO No.817 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** FAO No.817 of 1999 Date of decision : 11.10.2010 Karan Singh and another .......Appellants Vs. Kartar Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:-Mr.Sumeet Sheokand, Advocate, for Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. Navin Kapoor, Advocate, for Insurance Company --- K.KANNAN, J (ORAL) :- The deceased, who had sustained head injuries in a motor accident, that took place on 16.2.1992, had died ultimately only on 31.10.1994. The claimants were the parents. At the trial, the evidence was that after the accident, the injured has been treated firstly, at Panipat, later was taken treatment in Dahiya Nursing Home, Panipat and later to Ravindra Hospital, Panipat. Two doctors were examined, one PW-2, who stated that he given him treatment and PW-3 was another doctor, who had treated him till he died. It was brought on evidence that he remained on bed for the entire period of one and a half years. FAO No.817 of 1999 -2- The Tribunal found that since the length of period between the accident and the death was more than one and a half years, the death could not be taken to be resultant to the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, it treated the claim as one for injuries and awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/-that included a claim on account of pain and suffering. 2. In the matter relating to the issue whether accident has caused the death, the most crucial aspect that has to be seen is whether there was an accident that had resulted in injuries to the person. If the fact of accident and the injuries are admitted, then it must be examined whether there was any intervening factors that could have aggravated the cause of his illness or the death was independently of the injuries caused. The claimants were illiterate rural people and it could not have been expected that they had gathered all the medical reports from the time of accident till his death. It was very clear through the evidence that the deceased never recovered after the injuries suffered in accident. The deceased was a young person of 24 years and there was clear evidence that the deceased, even after being discharged from the hospital, was confined to bed and he had repeated episodes of convulsions. The doctor had given evidence that convulsions were on account of head injuries and that the death could have been due to the injuries suffered in the accident. There was acausal connection of death to injuries but I FAO No.817 of 1999 -3- have no doubt in my mind that the death arose only on account of accidental injuries. 3. The Tribunal took the income to be @ Rs.950/- and went on to determine the compensation in the manner which is already referred to. I would take the income to be notionally at Rs.15,000/- in absence of the documentary evidence and adopt the formula prescribed in Schedule 2 of the Act to provide a deduction of 1/3rd and take the contribution to the family at Rs.10,000/-per year. I shall adopt a multiplier of 17 to take the loss due to deparding at Rs.1,70,000/-. I shall provide Rs.15,000/-as medical expenses against the expenses of Rs.30,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, in the manner provided in Schedule 2. There would be no claim for pain and suffering for personal injuries which resultant in death. I would add another Rs.4500/-towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. In all, the amount that will become payable will be Rs.1,89,500/- (Rs.1,70,000/- + 15,000/- + 4500/-). The amount in excess of what has already been awarded by the Tribunal, shall bear interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of the petition till payment. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11th Oct., 2010 akm