S RAJARAM(DIED) Vs. V SHANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 made in MCOP.No.568 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Additional District Judge, Madurai.

(2.) In an accident which occurred on 03.11.2005, one Rajaram sustained right femur supracondylar fracture, comminuted and compound fracture of both bones in the right leg, fracture of right patella and other injuries. Immediately after the accident, the said Rajaram was taken to Jawahar Hospital, Madurai, and then he was shifted to Preethi Hospital, K.K Nagar, Madurai. Initially, the said Rajaram filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.568 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Additional District Judge, Madurai. He also examined himself before the Tribunal as PW1. While so, the said Rajaram died on 15.09.2009. According to the wife, daughter and son of the deceased who are the claimants, the said Rajaram died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, they filed impleading application in I.A.No.543/2009 to implead themselves as petitioners 2 to 4 in MCOP.No.568 of 2006 and they also filed an application in I.A.No.216/2010 to amend the claim petition stating that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The said applications were allowed on 20.04.2010 and 09.06.2010 respectively. The 2nd respondent insurance company resisted the claim petition by filing counter affidavit. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador Car belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company, but held that death of Rajaram was not occurred due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and therefore, awarded only Rs. 81,378/- towards medical expenses incurred by the appellants. As against the said award, the appellants/claimants have filed this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased died not due to the injuries sustained in the accident. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of PW7-Doctor which would show that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident.