IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1067 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.578/1998 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 9: ----------------------------------------------- 1. ALPHONSA, D/O. LONAPPAN, AGED 42 YEARS, KUTTIANIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. VELIMANAM, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT 2. MANU SEBASTIAN, S/O. SEBASTIAN, AGED 17 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER APHONSA, KUTTIANIKKAL HOUSE, -DO- -DO-. 3. MAJU SEBASTIAN, D/O. SEBASTIAN, AGED 16 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY MOTHER ALPHONSA, -DO- -DO-. 4. SHARMIN, S/O. SEBASTIAN, AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY MOTHER, ALPHONSA, -DO- -DO-. 5. K.M.MATHEW, S/O. MATHAI, KUTTIANIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. KEEZHAPPALLY. 6. K.M.JOSEPH, S/O. MATHAI, KUTTIANIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. KEEZHAPPALLY. 7. K.M.THOMAS, S/O. MATHAI, KUTTIANIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. KEEZHAPPALLY. 8. K.M.JAMES, S/O. MATHAI, KUTTIANIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. KEEZHAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.3: ------------------------------- UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD., KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON 04/11/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1067 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation granted by MACT for the death of husband of the first appellant who died after a road accident. Deceased one Mr.Sebastian who was employed in the KSRTC as a Mechanic was knocked down by a car while he was walking on the side of Bakel Road in Kasaragode on 3.8.1997. He was taken to Unity Hospital at Mangalore where he underwent treatment as inpatient from 3.8.1997 till 14.8.1997 when he died there. The body was taken to the Wentlok District Hospital at Mangalore for post mortem and Ext.A3 is the Post Mortem Certificate issued by that Hospital. Even though compensation was claimed for loss of dependency on account of death of husband of the first appellant, MACT granted a total compensation of Rs.50,000/-, but disallowed compensation for loss of dependency for the reason that wound certificate and Post Mortem Certificates produced are not reliable. The 2 appeal is filed challenging this part of the award and for grant of compensation for the loss of dependency on account of death of husband of the first appellant. We have heard counsel for the appellant, Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company and have gone through records of the case. 2. We find from the award that MACT has accepted the death of husband of the first appellant after the accident in hospital on 14.8.1997. However, based on the Post Mortem report about the cause of death as Septicaemia on account of injury suffered to the brain and the lungs, MACT held that death is attributable to medical negligence and consequently claimants are not entitled to compensation. We are unable to uphold this finding of the MACT because compensation cannot be disallowed for the reason that the death could have been prevented through proper medical care which is not within the control of the victim or his relations. The life of a critically injured person is at the hands of the Doctors who treat him. Probably there was want of expertise or want of proper care from the side of the hospital authorities. However, there is nothing to indicate that Septicaemia was 3 caused for want of proper medical care or on account of positive medical negligence on the part of the Doctors. The respondents have no case that Septicaemia is always a case of medical negligence. In any case since Septicaemia itself is a development from the injury to the lungs and brain of the victim sustained in the accident, death is directly attributable to the accident and therefore, appellants are entitled to compensation for loss of dependency. The other grounds stated in the award such as production of only copy of wound certificate and Post Mortem Certificate are concerned, we do not think this defect will render these documents invalid. In the first place, Post Mortem Certificate is part of the Police records and claimants may get only copy of the same. So long as respondents do not deny that the injury sustained by the victim led to his death, there is no justification to doubt the genuineness of the documents produced. It is proved beyond doubt from the wound certificate and the Post Mortem certificate that the victim died on account of acute infection due to the injury to brain, lungs etc. Therefore, death is on account of the accident and the insurer of the vehicle which caused the accident is liable to compensate 4 the appellants. 3. In the normal course, we should remand this case for fixation of compensation for loss of dependency by MACT. However, considering the fact that victim was an employee of the KSRTC which is not denied by the respondents and his age and salary are also not disputed, we fix the compensation for loss of dependency at Rs.5,40,000/- (taking annual income after deducting one third at Rs.36,000/- and considering the age of the victim as 42, multiplier at 15). This will be in addition to the compensation granted by the MACT under other heads. The additional compensation amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of application till date of payment. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms