NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MADHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the award of Rs.21,40,000/- awarded for the death of one Mr.Duraisamy, aged about 35 years, power loom weaver allegedly earning about Rs.9,000/- per month, in the accident which occurred on 09.05.2009.

(2.) The deceased Mr.Duraisamy was walking on the road on Edapadi to Salem main road, near Kettukadai Mani Tea Stall on Edapadi Taluk and the Hero Honda driven rashly and negligently by one Mr.Balaji, hit the victim, resulting in the deceased sustaining injuries. He sustained grievous head injury, fracture in right leg, holes in backside head in three places, lacerated wound in right and left elbow, lacerated wound in back side foot, fracture in left ankle, multiple grievous in head and other multiple injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital at Edappadi for taking first aid. Thereafter, he was referred to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital at Salem. He took treatment as an in-patient from 09.05.2009 to 10.05.2009. Thereafter, he was treated at Nallampatti Nattu Vaithiya hospital, Perambalur District. Subsequently, he was admitted for better treatment in Nalam hospital, Salem as an in-patient from 08.06.2009 to 12.06.2009. Thereafter, again the deceased was admitted in Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital at Salem and he died on 13.06.2009. Therefore, the claim petition. The said claim petition was resisted by insurance company. On contest, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler and awarded a sum of Rs.21,40,000/- and pay and recovery was also ordered as there was no valid licence possessed by the rider of the two wheeler. The said award is being challenged before this Court.

(3.) Mrs.N.B.Surekha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the deceased as he was walking on the middle of the road. The said contention has to be rejected, since there was no such plea in the counter statement. Moreover, there was no evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal based on PW2 eyewitness's evidence, Ex.P.1 - F.I.R., Ex.P.3 - M.V.I. Report, Ex.P.5 - Final report, rightly found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler. Therefore, the finding reached by the Tribunal cannot be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further submit that the date of accident is 09.05.2009, whereas the deceased died on 13.06.2009. Therefore, the death would not have been caused due to the accident. First of all, there is no such plea in the counter statement, secondly, there is no evidence in that regard. Even the postmortem report, which is relied upon shows that the victim died due to septicaemic shock and bony injuries sustained. Septicaemic shock is a serious medical condition that occurs when sepsis, which is an organ injury or damage in response to infection, leading to dangerously low blood pressure and abnormalities in cellular metabolism. The deceased sustained only bony injury in the accident and the reasons in the postmortem report for the death is due to septicaemic shock due to bony injuries sustained by the victim and therefore, the appellant cannot take advantage of the death of the deceased at a later point of time. Moreover, immediately after the accident, till death, the victim had been taking treatment in various hospitals as proved by the medical documents.