UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHOLI RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Union of India and another is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.6.2008 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shillong in MAC No. 58 of 2000 awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,40,754/- together with interest in favour of the Respondent.

(2.) The original claimant, the father of the claimant-Respondent herein, was working as Lineman under the Meghalaya State Electricity Board when the accident took place. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 17.11.1998, the original claimant was on duty at Pynursla and was walking along the main road on 17.11.1998 at about 1.30 PM when a Mini Truck bearing No. AS-01/ 4290 belonging to the Appellants, driven in a rash and negligent manner, and while trying to turn it on the main road, knocked down the original claimant. This resulted in causing serious injuries on his thigh bone as well as the hip bone. He was immediately taken to the Dispensary at Pongkang for first aid, but was transferred to the Civil Hospital, Shillong. Though he was discharged from the Civil Hospital, he was not cured and had to be taken to patna and thence to Hajipur. He was then brought back to Shillong where he was admitted to Woodjand Hospital and got discharged therefrom on 9.11.2001 for reference to International Hospital, Guwahati, where he was admitted on 10.11.2001. He died on 11.11.2001. The case of the claimant-Respondent is that his father died due to the accident as it had affected his left thigh bone resulting in abnormal gait. At this stage, it may be noted that the original claimant had filed the claim petition for compensation causing the aforesaid injuries to him. After his death, he was substituted by the claimant-Respondent, who, as already indicated, is his son. The Appellants contested the claim petition and filed their written statement whereupon the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(3.) At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal awarded the compensation to the Respondent as already noticed. Aggrieved by this, this appeal has been preferred by the Appellants. The first contention of Mr. S.C. Shyam, the learned CGC is that there is no evidence to establish the nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased-claimant ("the deceased" for short): whereas the deceased met the accident on 17.11,1998, he died on 11.11.2001 i.e. after nearly three years of the occurrence of the accident. It is the submission of the learned CGC that the fracture suffered by the deceased on his thigh is curable if proper treatment and precaution had been taken by him during the post operation period. Drawing my attention to the evidence of CW 3 that the victim soon after his discharge from the Civil Hospital, Shillong had taken extensive tour by bus, rail, etc. to various places like Guwahati, Patna, Hajipur, etc. and had neglected medical advice thereby aggravating his wound, he submits that the death of the deceased could not, therefore, be attributed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, and the conclusion to the contrary made by the Tribunal cannot obviously be sustained in law. It is contended by the learned CGC that keeping in mind the fact that the deceased died about three years after the accident and the complete absence of medical evidence to establish the nexus between the injuries sustained by him in the accident and his death, the Tribunal has completely gone overboard in awarding the compensation. The learned CGC lastly contends mat the interest awarded @ 7% per annum is also on the high side and needs to be interfered with. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Pradhan, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, vehemently supports the impugned judgment and award and urges this Court to dismiss the appeal with costs.