Compensation For Death Payable If Nexus With Injuries Sustained In Motor Accident Established: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court recently modified the award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which refused compensation for death of a 58-yr-old Jaipur resident on the ground that there was no nexus between the injuries sustained by him during the motor accident and his subsequent death.A single judge bench of Justice Birendra Kumar held:“There is no material on record to substantiate that prior...
The Rajasthan High Court recently modified the award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which refused compensation for death of a 58-yr-old Jaipur resident on the ground that there was no nexus between the injuries sustained by him during the motor accident and his subsequent death.
A single judge bench of Justice Birendra Kumar held:
“There is no material on record to substantiate that prior to his death on 15.12.2008, Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar had already got cured of the fracture of his leg which was caused during accident. Therefore, death due to development of other complications, cannot be said to have no connection with the injury caused rather, consistent material on record speaks volume that fracture of both upper and lower bones of right leg was continuing till death due to infection and that the fracture had led to non-movement of body creating further medical complication including kidney failure.”
Deceased TP Vishvnath Naiyar sustained fractures on his legs and ribs after meeting with a motor vehicle accident while crossing the road in 2006. While he filed a claim case in January 2007 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, he expired in December 2008. Thereafter, his legal heirs got themselves substituted in the claim case before the Tribunal which refused compensation for death on the ground that there was no nexus between the injuries sustained during the accident and the death.
Hence, the appellants moved the High Court.
Dileep Singh Jadaun, counsel appearing for appellants argued that consequences of accident, i.e., fracture of leg bone were there all along till Naiyar's death and that was the main reason for premature death even after two years’ treatment. Therefore, he submitted that there was overwhelming evidence on the record to substantiate that Naiyar's fracture was not cured, due to serious infection, till his death. It was contended that Tribunal has wrongly relied on the opinion of Dr. Anil Choudhary, who was one of the panellist doctors of the insurer and during his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not ever seen the patient/deceased.
At the outset, the court observed that opinion of Dr. Anil Choudhary cannot be considered as expert opinion as he had no opportunity to see Naiyar or treat him. It then took note of the opinion rendered by Board of Doctors of S.M.S. Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur as per which it was a case of non-union of right leg bones.
In this backdrop the Court held, “death of Mr. T.P. Vishvnath Naiyar was a consequence of the motor vehicle accident and the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the material on record in a correct perspective.”
Accordingly, it modified the award of the tribunal and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,51,000/- including the compensation for death, minus the amount already paid at the similar interest rate which the tribunal has decided.
Case Title: Late T. P. Vishvnath Naiyar & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Limited & 3 Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 10
Coram: Justice Birendra Kumar