P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the claimants in MVC No. 1822 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) (‘Tribunal’ for short) awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- payable with 6% interest p.a. vide judgment and award dated 10-10-2012.
2. Brief facts of the case.-
Appellants-claimants are husband and three minor children of one Smt. Padma alias Padmavathi, who met with a road traffic accident on 16-12-2010 at about 2 p.m. at Puttappanadoddi, Channapatna on Bengaluru-Mysuru Road when a bus bearing No. KA-01-D-9256 dashed against her. After first aid, at Government Hospital, she was shifted to NIMHANS, Bengaluru and thereafter to Dr. Malathi Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru where she underwent several procedures/surgeries. After discharge, she was taking follow-up treatment at Sri Lakshmi Hospital. She died on 27-12-2010 at about 9.20 p.m.
3. Claimants brought an action against the respondents before the Tribunal for compensation. First respondent-Insurer resisted the claim contending inter alia, that the police documents and the medical records disclose that the victim died due to ‘cardiac infarction’ and not due to road traffic accident. The post-mortem report also indicates that the cause of death is congenctive cardiac failure due to ‘cardiac infarction’. Therefore, there is no cause of action and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. On consideration of the pleadings, depositions and material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the victim had no nexus with her death. However, taking cognizance of the fact that the appellants had spent Rs. 41,044/- towards medical expenses awarded a global compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, this appeal.
5. We have heard Sri M.B. Chandra Chooda, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri H.N. Keshava Prashanth, learned Counsel for the first respondent and perused the material papers.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the death of the victim had no nexus to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Adverting to the evidence of P.W. 4-Dr. Pramila who was treating the victim at Sri Lakshmi Hospital and P.W. 5-Dr. Shyamala V., who conducted the post-mortem, he submits that a careful reading of deposition of these two Doctors should lead to an irresistible inference that the death of the victim was due to deteriorating prognosis culminating in cardiac failure. He therefore prays that this appeal be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently submits that records clearly disclose that the victim met with a road traffic accident on 15-12-2010 and died on 27-12-2010. In the interregnum, she was treated and discharged from Dr. Malathi, Manipal Hospital. The cause of death recorded in the post-mortem report is ‘cardiac failure’. Therefore, victim’s death has no nexus with the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident. Tribunal is right in its judgment, which is in consonance with a ruling in the case of Uttam Kumar (deceased) v Madhav and Another’ and accordingly prays for dismissal of this appeal.
8. Facts are not in dispute. Victim met with the accident on 16-12-2010. She was under treatment in Dr. Malathi, Manipal Hospital from 16-12-2010 to 22-12-2010. She was admitted on 24-12-2010 in Sri Lakshmi Hospital and died on 27-12-2010.
9. Discharge summary issued by Sri Lakshmi Hospital dated 24-1-2011 discloses that victim was admitted with complaint of vomiting. The history of accident and treatment given in Dr. Malathi, Manipal Hospital is also recorded in the summary. Condition of victim just prior to her death is recorded as follows:
“On 27-12-2010 9.20 p.m.
Pt. collapsed suddenly, CPCR done. Not fruitful. Declared dead at 9.45 p.m.”
10. In the light of above factual matrix, following points arise for our consideration:
(1) Whether the injuries sustained by the victim had any nexus with the cause of death rendering respondents liable to pay compensation
(2) If the answer to the above point is in the positive, then, what should be the quantum of compensation
Re: Point No. (1):
Victim at the time of accident was aged 39 years. The diagnosis of Dr. Malathi, Manipal Hospital as recorded in the Discharge Summary reads as follows:
“Diagnosis:
1. Poly trauma with Multiple Facial Abrasion/Lacerations
2. Multiple Abrasion all over the body
3. Deploying injury left ankle
4. Fracture chip left talus”
The treatment given to the victim in Dr. Malathi, Manipal Hospital is as follows:
“Surgical/Therapeutic Procedures
17-12-2010 - Wound Debridement Suturing + Collagen Application Face, Right Upper Limb Under Ga
Course of treatment in Hospital
Patient was admitted with aforesaid complaints and investigated. Patient underwent the above procedure and tolerated well. Post op uneventful. Condition on discharge: Wound on left ankle has got doubtful viability. Patient is discharged with advice to continue regular dressing. Patient needs to be evaluated at later date for need of surgery.”
P.W. 4, in her examination-in-chief, has stated thus:
“2. I state that, a patient by name Mrs. Padma W/o Chinnappa was admitted in our hospital on 24-12-2010 with history of Road Traffic Accident, that occurred on 16-12-201 0 and sustained injuries over the face, upper limb and left leg, for which she had underwent surgery at Manipal Hospital, and with the complaints of vomiting and for Nursing care, he was given required treatment and care.
3. I stated that on 27-12-2010 while she was in our hospital as an inpatient, at around 9.20 p.m. she collapsed and was resuscitated but could not saver her.
4. I state that the cause of her death was due to stress of injuries sustained in the said accident.”
(emphasis supplied)
P.W. 5 is the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem. While being cross-examined, she was posed with a specific question directly by the Tribunal. The said question and her answer read as follows:
“Court Question: What are the contributing factors of injuries sustained in RTA for the death of the deceased who died of cardiac arrest
Answer: Dressed healing wounds on the right side of forehead, cheek and dorsum of nose, abrasions with healing wound on the dorsum of left leg from knee to foot, abrasions on the dorsum of left hand.
The deceased was a woman and she might have been traumatized due to the injuries sustained in RTA, which might have contributed to her cardiac arrest.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Tribunal while dealing with the question as to whether the cause of death of the victim is attributable to road traffic accident has substituted its own opinion over-ruling the opinion of the Doctor by holding thus in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment:
“I am of the opinion that the injuries sustained by the patient in road traffic accident had no contributing effect for the death of the deceased.”
Doctors are taught and trained in the medical colleges. Over the years they acquire expertise. To the pointed question posed by the Tribunal, P.W. 5 has categorically stated that the victim may have been traumatised due to injuries which may have contributed to her cardiac arrest. This evidence has remained unchallenged. Before the Tribunal, neither it was impeached by the respondent in any manner nor demonstrated to be an unworthy opinion by placing any contrary evidence from a Doctor with superior qualification and experience than P.W. 5.
It is not in dispute that the victim was aged 39 years and riding a two wheeler on a busy highway. Discharge summary issued by Dr. Malathi, Manipal Hospital reveals that the victim had suffered injuries and underwent surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Wound Certificate-Ex. P. 4 issued by the General Hospital, Channapattana, Bengaluru (Rural) discloses that the victim had sustained two grievous injuries and other simple injuries.
In the light of the medical opinion suggesting that the injuries might have contributed to the cardiac arrest of the victim, we answer this point in the affirmative. We hasten to add that the ruling of the Full Bench of this Court in Uttam Kumar’s case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent does not lead the case of the respondent any further. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for insurer relied upon paragraph 13 of the said judgment and the same is extracted hereunder:
“13. After elaborate discussion and detailed order, the Full Bench answered thus:
(i) A claim petition presented under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the person sustaining bodily injuries in a motor accident, claiming compensation for personal injuries as also for compensation towards expenses, loss of income, etc., (loss to estate) cannot, on such person’s death occurring not as a result or consequence of bodily injuries sustained from a motor accident, be prosecuted by his/her legal representative; but
(ii) A claim petition presented under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the person sustained bodily injuries in a motor accident, claiming compensation for personal injuries as also for compensation towards expenses, loss of income etc., (loss to estate) can, on such person’s death occurring as a result or consequence of bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident, be prosecuted by his/her legal representatives only insofar as the claim for compensation in that claim petition relates to loss to estate of the deceased person due to bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident.”
Thus, in the instant case, in view of our finding based on the medical evidence that the injuries had nexus with the death of the deceased, the aforementioned ruling cited and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the insurer has no application.
Re: Point No. (2):
Having held that the victim died as a result of deteriorating prognosis culminating in cardiac arrest, we proceed to assess the compensation. The deceased was aged 39 years and working as ;a co-ordinator in movements for alternative and youth awareness’. She was earning Rs. 11,780/- per month as evidenced by Ex. P. 10. Compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ will have to be computed after deducting 1/4th of her salary towards personal expenses, which works out to Rs. 8,835/-. Applying multiplier of 15, loss of dependency works out to Rs. 15,90,300/-. In addition, the claimants shall also to be entitled for compensation under conventional heads. On consideration of the entire material on record, in our considered view, the claimants shall be entitled to the compensation as computed hereunder:
DescriptionAmount in Rs.
Loss of dependency (8835 x 15 x 12)15,90,300/-
Loss of consortium1,00,000/-
Loss of love and affection1,00,000/-
Loss of estate25,000/-
Transportation and funeral expenses25,000/-
Total18,40,300/-
Less: Compensation as awarded by the Tribunal50,000/-
Enhanced Compensation17,90,300/-
11. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) Claimants shall be entitled for a total additional compensation of Rs. 17,90,300/- payable with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment;
(iii) First respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount awarded i.e., Rs. 17,90,300/- with 8% interest per annum within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(iv) From out of the said sum, Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank, in the name of appellant 1 for a period of 10 years and renewable for another five years. Out of the remaining enhanced compensation, Rs. 4,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be placed in Fixed Deposit in the names of appellants 2, 3 and 4 till they attain the age of 30 years. Appellant I-father shall be entitled to withdraw the interest for the welfare of his children till they attain the age of 22 years thereafter, the respective claimant shall be entitled to draw the interest.
(v) The remaining sum of Rs. 2,90,300/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the first appellant.
