HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR M.A.No.1060 of 2005 APPELLANTS Kamla Bai & others VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Putnoor & others AWARD For consideration ) 2- -09.201 1 Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. •'<2^a— sd/- Chief Justfce ^oK.-""^'-" • Sd/- N.K.AgrawaI Judge Post for: [Z. .09.2011 Sd/- Judge J2, .09.2011 .-.:... ^".^T^E^-jftSHU?^"—— ^"^-^ASS^^.S%-^/. 9•a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A No.1060of2005 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS 1, Kamla Bai, W/o Late Radhelal, aged about 32 years. 2. Ku. Savita, D/o Late Radhelal, aged about 13years. 3. Ku. Dhavani, D/o Radhelal, aged about 11 years. 4. Bhagwat, S/o Radhelal, aged about 6 years. All R/o viilage-Sargaon, Post- Randhana, Tahsil Pharasgaon, Ate present R/o village Sarona, Tahsil Narharpur, Distt. ^nker (CG). Appeilant No. 2 to:4 are minor through-Guardian (Mother) appellant No. 1. Versus 1. Putnoor, S/o Achariya, aged about 26 years, R/o vlllage Saloor, Thana, Saloor, Distt. Vijayanagaram (AP). 2. K. Tirupati Rao, S/o late Marraya, R/'o Shyamlamba Temple, Street Saloor, Thana, Saloor, Distt. Vijayanagaram (AP). 3. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon'bie Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. Present : Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate for respondent No. 1&2. None for respondent No. 3. '"^^ ^ 4. (Deilvered on \Z 09.2011) Per : N.K. Agarwal, J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), l^nker (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 7/04 vide award dated 11.02.2005. As against the compensation of Rs. 4,84,000./- claimed by unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Radhelal by fiiing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act'), for the death of deceased in the motor accident on 27.02.2003, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 33,534/- as compensation along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The Tribuna!, on a close scrutiny of evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. A.P.-35/T-6219 by respondent No. 1 i.e. driver of vehicle; deceased Radhelal sustained multiple injuries in the said accident; appellants/claimants failed to establish any connection between the injuries and death of deceased; insurance company liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish breach of poticy conditions; assessed and awarded Rs. 33,534/- in favour of appellants/claimants along with interest @ 6 percent from the date of application till the date of actual payment. Shri Bharat Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the appeliants would submit: deceased Radhelal died on 26.07.2003 on account ••'•'"< ^^ a- of multiple serious injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 27.02.2003. The Tribunal has fallen in error in not accepting any connection between the injuries and death and thereby in awarding low amount of compensation. 5. On the other hand Shri Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/The New India Insurance Company Ltd. supported the award impugned and submitted : the Tribunal has rightly held that there is no connection between the Injuries and death of deceased and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. i 6. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records as well as award impugned. 7. Undisputedly, death of deceased Radhelal took place after about five months ofthe date ofaccident. In orderto establish connection between accidental injuries and death, it was necessary for the appellants/claimants to adduce appropriate medical evidence. 8. We have perused the record. As per discharge ticket (Ex. P/6) deceased Radhelal was admitted in the hospital on 04.03.2003 and was discharged on 28.03.2003. Doctor advised him to come after one month for review. He was again examined on 09.05.2003. At that time, he was also suffering from bedsore and doctor advised him to come after three months for further review. Before completion ofthree months he died on 26.07.2003. In order to estabiish link between the injuries sustained and death, the appellants/claimants ought to have examined treating doctor which they had not done. 9. Shri Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants/claimants are poor persons. Deceased Radhelal was their bread-earner, infact died on account of injuries sustained in the accident, and therefore, in order to give opportunity to them for establlshing link between the injuries and death by examining the concerned doctor; the matter be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the injuries sustained by deceased Radhelal, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to afford one opportunity to the appellants/claimants for establishing connection between the injuries and death of deceased. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove the appeal is allowed in part. The matter is remltted back to the concerned Tribunal for deciding the claim case afresh, so far as amount of compensation is concerned, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellants/claimants for the purpose of establishing connection between the injuries and death, and also to the respondents to adduce evidence in rebuttal. 12. Records of Tribunai be sent back forthwith. 13. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 10.10.2011. No order asto costs. s<y- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge 1