THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.3382 of 2009 JUDGMENT: On 24.01.1996, the deceased respondent No.1 was travelling in a bus bearing No.TNI 0518, owned by respondent No.8 and insured with the appellant, plying between Khammam and Pindiprolu. When the bus reached Arempula Village at 2.00 p.m., it dashed against a culvert. Respondent No.1 and other passengers received simple and minor injuries. An F.I.R. was registered in relation to the accident and a charge sheet was also issued. Respondent No.1 filed O.P.No.455 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming a sum of Rs.25,000/-, as compensation. One year nine months after the date of accident, respondent No.1 died on 27.10.1997 during the pendency of the O.P. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were brought on record as legal representatives. On an application filed by them, the claim in the O.P. was amended to Rs.1,50,000/-. They pleaded that the death of respondent No.1 was referable to the injuries received by her in the accident. The O.P. was opposed by the appellant. Through its order, dated 01.06.2001, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,24,400/-. The same is challenged in this appeal. Heard Smt.Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6. The only injury received by respondent No.1 in the accident was in the form of an abrasion of 1” X ¼” on the lower lip. This was evidenced by Ex.A3. Though a prescription was given for taking X-ray, the same was not given effect to. Respondent No.1 filed the claim for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. During the pendency of the O.P., respondent No.1 died on 27.10.1997. There was a gap of one year nine months between the date of accident and the date of death. No post-mortem was conducted on the body of respondent No.1. Though an attempt was made by P.W.2, the Doctor, who is said to have treated respondent No.1 to link the death to the injury received in the accident, he clearly admitted in the cross-examination that he cannot say whether respondent No.1 died only due to chest pain or as a result of the injury received in the accident. Barring the weak evidence of P.W.2, there was no evidence to establish that the death of respondent No.1 was on account of the injury. Further, the record discloses that not even for one day, respondent No.1 was treated as inpatient. The injury was only on the lip, that too, in the form of an abrasion. Hence, it is clear that there was absolutely no evidence to link the death of the deceased to the injury received in the accident. The maximum that the Tribunal could have awarded was Rs.25,000/- claimed by respondent No.1. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is modified to the effect that respondent Nos.2 to 6 shall be entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum. It shall be apportioned among respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in the same ratio, as directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:14.09.2009 kdl