IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 193 of 2008() ------------------------------ OPMV.996/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOLLAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT/PETITIONER : ---------------------------------- NALINI, PACHAKKATTIL VEEDU, NEDUMONPURAM, ELAMPAZHANNOOR, KADAKKAL. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 193 of 2008 ORDER ON I.A.NO.266 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO.193 OF 2008 DISMISSED 28.10.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 193 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur, in OP(MV) 996/03. One Sahadevan sustained injuries in a road accident. Admittedly he died during the pendency of the claim petition. A person named Nalini, claiming to be his wife, got herself impleaded as additional 2nd petitioner for proceeding with the case. It was allowed. Ultimately, the Tribunal has recorded that Sahadevan died and the 2nd petitioner, namely Nalini, is granted a compensation of Rs.80,000/-. It is against that decision, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. The point that arises for determination is whether the death of Sahadevan was on account of the injury sustained in the accident. In the impleading petition filed as IA 943/05, one cannot find a specific averment to the effect that the death is on account of the injury sustained in the accident. The postmortem certificate is produced and marked as Ext.A5. A copy of the same is made available before me by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. As per the postmortem report, the dead body of the person in Crime No.468/03 has been subjected to autopsy. A perusal of the records would show that the accident case is registered as Crime No.253/03 of the Kadakkal Police Station. It is only an offence under MACA No. 193/08 2 sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC. Suppose it is a continuation of the said crime and when a person died on account of the injury sustained in the accident under ordinary circumstances, the charge or the crime should have been altered under section 304(A) of the IPC. One cannot find any materials on that point. Crime Nos.253 and 468 should be totally different one. Therefore, I do not feel that the postmortem certificate can be considered to rely upon for the purpose of coming to a decision that the death had taken place on account of the injury sustained in the accident. In these types of cases when the opposite party raises a contention that the cause of death is not on account of the injury sustained, there must be some legally acceptable evidence to show that the death had taken place as a result of the injury sustained in the accident. The postmortem report which relates to another crime number may not be sufficient to establish that factum. Secondly, there is a contention raised by the Insurance Company that the deceased Sahadevan had no legal representatives at all whereas the 2nd additional petitioner claimed to be his wife. In order to be the wife, there must be some evidence adduced to satisfy that there has been a legal marriage between Sahadevan and Nalini. Mere production of a legal heirship certificate may not be sufficient. But, it may be a piece of evidence. When it is supported by corroborative evidence, it is a matter that can be looked into. The Tribunal has not considered these matters MACA No. 193/08 3 properly. Therefore the award requires interference. The award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the following points: (i) Whether the death of Sahadevan is on account of the injury sustained in the accident. (ii) Whether there is acceptable legal evidence to show that Nalini is the legally wedded wife of Sahadevan. Parties are permitted to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal shall then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Since the respondent has not appeared before this court, the Insurance Company is directed to take out notice to her after its appearance so that there can be a disposal after hearing both sides. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.12.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 193/08 4