HASEENA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'] were the wife, minor child and the mother of an Excise Guard, who died, allegedly as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred on 29/4/2006 when the motorcycle driven by the deceased collided with another motorcycle, owned and driven by the fourth respondent. The accident occurred at about 9 am and the injured victim was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. The victim was treated as an inpatient from 29/4/2006 till 3/5/2006 and discharged. The injuries suffered by him were compound fracture of second, third and fourth metatarsals of right foot and a simple fracture of the proximal phalanx of left little finger. He also sustained a wound at the fracture site.

(2.) After getting discharged, the treatment continued as an outpatient till 12/8/2006, subsequent to which he was referred to a higher medical centre for plastic surgery consultation. On 18/9/2006, the victim was admitted to the higher medical centre with a non-healing ulcer on the right foot. The victim was advised to undergo a surgery after which he abruptly died. The cause of death was pulmonary embolism/acute myocardial infarction. The death occurred on 18/9/2006, almost five months after the date of the accident. The Tribunal found the death to be a direct consequence of the accident which finding was overturned by the High Court. The appeal is by the claimants against the judgment of the High Court.

(3.) The factum of the accident and the death is undisputed. The controversy arose insofar as the death occurred after five months; whether the accident was a direct causation of the death. The High Court has elaborately considered the evidence of PW-1, the plastic surgeon who carried out the surgical procedure and found the death to be not a direct cause of the accident.