IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A.No.3298 of 2011 1.Jaya 2.Minor Aasviga . . Appellants/Petitioners Vs. 1.Karthikeyan 2.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Mayiladuthurai Represented by its Branch Manager Having his Office at No.30/6E, 1st Floor, Deen Plaza State Bank Road Mayiladuthurai . . Respondents/Respondents Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 23.02.2011 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.119 of 2009 and consequently, allow M.A.C.T.O.P.No.119 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court) at Karaikal. For Appellants : M/s.Sai, Bharathi & Ilan JUDGMENT The Appeal is filed by the claimants as against the order of dismissal of the claim petition claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in an alleged accident that took place on 04.03.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The grievance of the appellants is that the Lower Court has pointed out that the death was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and rejected the very claim itself. According to the appellants, the deceased sustained injury in his stomach and also in the scalp. The injury sustained in the stomach had developed further complication resulted in the death of the deceased. According to the appellants, the deceased was in continuous treatment and ultimately, he died after 11 months. Only after the death of the deceased, the claim petition was filed. The Court below finding that there was no correlating evidence between the death and accident, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come forward with this Appeal. 3. At the time of admission of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, when a specific question was put to the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether any evidence was let in to show that the deceased was taking continuous treatment after the accident, till the death of the deceased, the learned counsel fairly submitted that no document has been produced and no Doctor was examined. According to the appellants, the Accident Register- Ex.P.5, Discharge Slip-Ex.P.7 and Post-mortem Certificate-Ex.P.8 were produced before the lower Court. The Post-morterm Certificate-Ex.P.8 would indicate that the death was due to the accident. Unfortunately, Ex.P.5-Accident Register reveals that on 04.03.2008 when the deceased Kumar was treated by the Doctor at Government Hospital, Karaikal, he sustained only a lacerated injury of scalp of about 3 x 1 c.m. X-ray was taken and the Radiologist report shows that there was no bony lesions. Therefore, it is very clear that the deceased sustained simple injury. It is also seen that the driver of the vehicle lodged a complaint and since he smelt alcohol, his blood was sent for test and that report was not produced before the Court. It has also further made clear by the lower Court that after the admission in the Hospital immediately on the next day morning itself under Ex.P.7, the deceased was discharged from the Hospital. Whether the deceased has taken treatment subsequent to the accident or died due to the injuries sustained in the accident, is not at all proved, either by any independent evidence or by Doctor or any other medical record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would only contend that the Post-mortem report, under Ex.P.8, indicate that the cause of death is due to Hypovolaemic shock as a result of upper gastro intestinal haemorrhage. But, neither in the wound certificate nor in the evidence there was any connection between the injury in his scalp and stomach, which is sated to be the cause of death or the alleged Hypovolaemic shock as a result of upper gastro intestinal haemorrhage. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly held that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ since there was no nexus to the injuries in the accident and the death of the deceased, the claim made by the appellants, is not maintainable and the claim petition was rightly rejected by the lower Court. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the lower court. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. smn Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court), Karaikal + 1 cc to M/s. Sai Bharath & Ilan, Advocate SR No.69580 BS(CO) SR/28.12.2011 C.M.A.No.3298 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/