Case: RAMKALI THAKUR AND OTHERS Vs. PANCHARAM AND OTHERS

1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal has been filed by the claimants questioning the judgment and order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the High Court in M.A. No. 4498 of 2009. 4. The appellants are the legal heirs of Illa Raj Singh Thakur (the deceased). He met with an accident on 18.11.2003. While riding his motorcycle, he was dashed by truck bearing registration No. R.J.-21-G/2212 driven by Pancharam (the driver). He fell down and sustained injuries on both his hands, right leg and some other parts of the person and became unconscious. He was treated as an admitted patient at Gayatri Hospital from 18.11.2003 to 19.12.2003. The deceased has sustained fracture of ulna bone of right hand and of the wrist of left hand. The operation was conducted by one Dr. V.K. Sood. The application was filed by Illa Raj Singh Thakur claiming compensation. Subsequently, Illa Raj Singh Thakur died on 19.05.2005. After the death of Illa Raj Singh Thakur, his legal heirs, who are appellants before us, got amended the claim petition and claimed compensation of Rs. 20,63,681/-. 5. The averment in the claim petition filed by the appellants was that death was caused due to the accident and the respondents are liable to pay compensation treating death as a result of the accident. The appellants produced oral evidence of three Doctors viz. Dr. Sood, Dr. Tiwari and Dr. Yogesh. 6. The Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering all evidence on record, came to the conclusion that death cannot be said to have been caused due to the accident. The Tribunal, however, allowed the claim petition which was initially filed by Illa Raj Singh Thakur and awarded compensation of Rs.1,13,018/- with interest. 7. The appellants filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of the Tribunal. The High Court vide its judgment and order allowed the appeal in part and enhanced the amount from Rs.1,13,018/- to Rs.1,48,018/- along with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum of Rs.35,000/-. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support thereof, contends that there were ample medical evidence in the form of oral evidence of three Doctors particularly, Dr. Tiwari which has amply proved that death was the result of the injuries sustained due to the accident. The operation of the wrist undertaken is consequent to the injuries. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the case of the claimants and further the High Court has also not dealt with the said issue in a correct manner. The evidence of Dr. Tiwari was also not considered by the Tribunal in right perspective due to which there was an error in holding that death was not a result of the accident. 9. He further submitted that in any case, the claim which was allowed by the Tribunal and modified a little by the High Court was too meagre. He submits that the deceased was awarded only Rs.10,000/- for pain and sufferings whereas he went under trauma for about one and a half years. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents refuted the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and contends that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that death cannot be related to the accident. The oral evidence has been correctly marshalled by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that insofar as the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the same has already been enhanced by the High Court by Rs.35,000/-. 11. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Coming to the first submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that death was a result of the accident, the Tribunal, for coming to the conclusion that death cannot be related to the accident, has not only considered the evidence of all three Doctors but also the other oral evidence on the record including the statement of Ramkali Thakur (AW-3). 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits the statement of Dr. P. K. Tiwari has not been given correct interpretation. 14. We do not agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. The evidence of Dr. P. K. Tiwari was thoroughly considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while considering the evidence of Dr. P. K. Tiwari observed as follows: However, Dr. P. K. Tiwari has stated that he had examined Illraj on 12/5/2005 and advised for investigation of diabetes and also advised to have treatment with an orthopedic doctor at any good hospital at Nagpur. This witness has also stated that at the time Illraj Singh had about the pain and swelling in the right forearm and mucus / fluid secretion from the mid of the right forearm. But this witness has not clearly stated that he had found the secretion of fluid from the injuries at the mid of the right forearm of Illraj Singh. So, by the production of the evidences by the applicants it has not been conclusively proved that the cause of death of Illraj Singh was due the infections in wounds which were inflicted in the accident. Rather it has been proved themselves by the applicants that deceased Illraj Singh joined his duties after recovering from the injuries. Thus for the above mentioned two questions are concluded in the said terms. 15. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal in holding that death of the deceased cannot be imputed as a result of the accident. Now we come to the second submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the amount under different heads has not been appropriately granted to the appellants. We have looked into the different claims awarded by the Tribunal. The claim of Rs.73,018/- which was expenses of treatment has been fully allowed. We, however, notice that the Tribunal has allowed a very meagre amount of Rs. 10,000/- for physical and mental agony.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]11. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.12. Coming to the first submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that death was a result of the accident, the Tribunal, for coming to the conclusion that death cannot be related to the accident, has not only considered the evidence of all three Doctors but also the other oral evidence on the record including the statement of Ramkali Thakur (AW-3).14. We do not agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. The evidence of Dr. P. K. Tiwari was thoroughly considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while considering the evidence of Dr. P. K. Tiwari observed as follows:However, Dr. P. K. Tiwari has stated that he had examined Illraj on 12/5/2005 and advised for investigation of diabetes and also advised to have treatment with an orthopedic doctor at any good hospital at Nagpur. This witness has also stated that at the time Illraj Singh had about the pain and swelling in the right forearm and mucus / fluid secretion from the mid of the right forearm. But this witness has not clearly stated that he had found the secretion of fluid from the injuries at the mid of the right forearm of Illraj Singh. So, by the production of the evidences by the applicants it has not been conclusively proved that the cause of death of Illraj Singh was due the infections in wounds which were inflicted in the accident. Rather it has been proved themselves by the applicants that deceased Illraj Singh joined his duties after recovering from the injuries. Thus for the above mentioned two questions are concluded in the said terms.15. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal in holding that death of the deceased cannot be imputed as a result of the accident. Now we come to the second submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the amount under different heads has not been appropriately granted to the appellants. We have looked into the different claims awarded by the Tribunal. The claim of Rs.73,018/- which was expenses of treatment has been fully allowed. We, however, notice that the Tribunal has allowed a very meagre amount of Rs. 10,000/- for physical and mental agony.