THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A No.1654 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.242 of 2002 on the file of the court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal granting compensation of Rs.2,48,000/- to the petitioners. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein. The O.P was filed by the husband and children of deceased. The allegations in the petition goes to show that on 24-11-2000 when the deceased and some other persons were travelling in an auto bearing No.AP36U-6945 at about 3.00 P.M the driver of the auto who is also owner of the same drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which the auto turned turtle and deceased sustained fracture of neck of left humerus and other grievous injuries and she was treated in Lalitha Orthopaedic Hospital, Warangal and was in-patient for about four days and was operated. She took private treatment but the injuries were not cured and an Epilepsy was developed and she was treated in MGM Hospital, Warangal. A sum of Rs.1 lakh was spent for the treatment. As the husband of the deceased was suffering with mental illness and the other petitioners are her children depending on the deceased, they claimed a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. The first respondent remained ex parte and second respondent filed a counter contending that the petitioners have to prove the income and dependency and nature of the accident has to be proved. It is further to be proved that the deceased succumbed to the injuries caused in a motor vehicle accident. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1. Whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the steering Auto bearing No.AP36U 6945 by its driver? 2. What was the age and income of the deceased by the date of accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondents no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.2,48,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no proof that the death of the deceased was due to injuries received in a motor vehicle accident and she died six (6) months after the incident. There is no post-mortem examination and there is no inquest and in the absence of such convincing evidence, granting of compensation as the case of death is not proper. Evidently, PW.2 who treated the deceased was examined and according to him the deceased was admitted in the hospital in an unconscious state and she died on 12-04-2001 due to hypotension and Epilepsy.Ex.X-1 is the case sheet. He also opined that death was due to above reasons as well as the fracture of neck of left humerus and third and fourth lower ribs alleged to have been sustained by the deceased in the motor accident. As can be seen from the Ex.A-4 medical certificate of MGM hospital, the deceased sustained fracture of neck of left humerus; fracture of 3rd and 4th ribs of left chest. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it is quite clear that the nature of the injuries received by the deceased in a motor vehicle accident are only to the shoulder. The incident has happened on 24-11-2000 whereas the death of the deceased was on 12-04-2001. There is nothing on record to show that in the meantime the deceased was treated in any hospital or suffered any disability. The cause of death as opined by PW.2 was only the hypotension and epilepsy and that was a consequence of the injuries received by her in the motor vehicle accident. The doctor who treated the deceased was not examined. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it is very difficult to accept the evidence of PW.2 about the cause of death as being a consequence of the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident. The evidence on record does not point out that the injuries received are so consequential to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, taking into consideration, I have no hesitation in holding that the reasons given by the lower tribunal in treating it as a case of death are not proper and valid. However, it is quite clear that the deceased has suffered serious injuries which are partial permanent and also grievous. It clearly goes to show that the pain and suffering suffered by her is more and evidently she appears to be only the person taking care of her family as her husband is said to be an unsound mind. Therefore, her loss of income and the cause of disability causing loss of dependency to the family cannot be ignored. Apart from it the deceased must have also spent money for her treatment for the above injuries. Therefore taking into consideration of the above facts, I feel ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- is granted on all counts as there is no sufficient material to hold the composition of compensation the petitioners are entitled. The insurance of the vehicle is not disputed. Th0erefore, the appellant is liable to pay the said compensation. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the award of the lower court. The petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till date of realisation. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 16-08-2011 TSNR