LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-55

BRANCH OFFICE Vs. MEENAKSHI

Decided On January 05, 2018
Branch Office Appellant
V/S
MEENAKSHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company questioning the liability fastened on them as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in and by award dated 07.03.2014 in M.C.O.P. No. 240 of 2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Cheyyar.

(2.) It is the case of claimants 1 to 6, before the Tribunal, who are the wife, daughters, minor daughter, minor son and mother of the deceased, namely, Arumugam, that on 13.03.2009, at about 1.15.p.m., when the deceased, who was working as Head Constable, in Anakkavoor Police Station, Cheyyar Circle, Tiruvannamalai District, after finishing his duty, came out of the Police Station in his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN.25 C 5926, a Tata Sumo Van bearing Registration No. TN 46 C 4777, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two-wheeler of the deceased and thus caused the accident. In the said accident, the victim Arumugam suffered severe grievous injuries. Initially, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Cheyyar and thereafter, he was referred to Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre, Porur, Chennai, where he took treatment as an inpatient from 13.03.2009 to 24.03.2009, again from 25.03.2009 to 06.04.2009 and thereafter, from 26.04.2009 to 02.06.2009. The victim Arumugam had suffered Poly Skeletal Trauma, Grade 1 Compound Comminuted Fracture, Right Proximal Third Tibia and Fibula Fracture, Right 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal base fracture righ foot left lower limb closed distal 3rd femur fracture with distal tibia and fibular fracture. Inspite of the treatment given, the said Arumugam died on 02.06.2009. Hence, respondents 1 to 6 /claimants made their claim as against the owner of Tata Sumo Van bearing Registration No. TN 46 C 4777 as well as against the appellant Insurance Company, who is the insurer of the said vehicle.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company had taken a defence that death was not due to the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. The victim Arumugam, who was treated at Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre, Porur, Chennai, after full recovery was discharged by the hospital authorities on 24.03.2009. Subsequently, he was re-admitted and according to the learned counsel, the re-admission was not due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, but for other ailments.