Delhi High Court
Angoori Devi & Ors. vs Harit Kumar & Ors. on 21 July, 2017
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 21st July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 315/2009 and CM APPL.17237/2009
ANGOORI DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
versus
HARIT KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ram. N. Sharma, Advocate
for R-3 with Shri Alok Srivastava, Regional
Manager.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Amar Nath son of Shri Sakatu Ram had filed accident claim
case (petition No.577/2008 originally 50/2006) on 22.04.2006 seeking
compensation for injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular
accident that had occurred on 11.04.2006, statedly involving motor
vehicle bearing registration no.HR-46B-2688, concededly insured
against third party risk with the third respondent herein. As per the
averments in the abovesaid petition, the accident had resulted in
grievous injuries being sustained, both lower limbs having been
damaged. Even before the respondents (which included the insurer,
driver and owner of the above mentioned vehicle), could be served,
the original claimant died on 14.05.2006, during treatment in hospital.
On application moved, his wife and two minor children, they being the
appellants herein, were allowed to prosecute the claim case further,
having been substituted in his place as the claimants. The amended
petition which came on record would plead that the death had
occurred due to the injuries suffered in the accident.
2. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 12.03.2009,
awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.11,300/- with interest at 7.5%
per annum, such award having been computed including Rs.3,000/-
towards medicines and medical treatment, Rs.3,300/- towards loss to
estate and loss of income, Rs.2,000/- towards special diet and
Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance. The tribunal observed in the said
judgment that since original claim was filed for compensation for
injuries, the claimant having died such claim would not survive, it
being personal to the victim.
3. The claimants filed the present appeal in July, 2009, their prime
contention being that the death had occurred due to the injuries
suffered in the accident and, therefore, the loss of dependency also had
to be compensated besides there being a case for award of non-
pecuniary damages under other customary heads like loss of love and
affection, loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses, etc.
4. By order dated 07.12.2009 a learned Single Judge of this court
then dealing with the matter directed the Medical Superintendent of
Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi to send the record of the
MLC No.1081/2006 dated 11.04.2006. This direction was reiterated
by subsequent order dated 08.03.2010. Pursuant to the said directions,
a copy of the said MLC has come on record.
5. The chronology of events, and some material on record, seem to
substantiate the submissions of the claimants that the death had indeed
occurred due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The accident had
occurred on 11.04.2006. The record indicates the pelvic region and
both lower limbs had been crushed and the bones fractured. The
victim remained hospitalized till he passed away on 14.05.2006. It
does appear that during the inquiry at the instance of the claimants, Dr.
Hemant Gupta (PW-2) of Hemant Hospital, Malviya Chowk, Roorkie,
U.P. appeared to prove certain record of treatment. He stated that the
victim had died on 14.05.2006 "due to cardio respiratory failure".
6. In the claim petition as originally presented Amar Nath had
described himself as a self-employed vegetable seller, who was 39
years old at relevant time. In absence of any claim or proof that he
suffered from any heart ailment, it required examination as to what
had triggered the cardio respiratory failure on 14.05.2006. It would
perhaps not call for much imagination to draw some possible
connection between the injuries suffered and the said cardio
respiratory failure. The lower part of the body having been mutilated
and crushed, multiple bones fractured, the possibility of cardiac failure
triggering due to the injuries cannot be ruled out.
7. It appears that the tribunal did not hold proper inquiry to go
deeper into the issue. This may have resulted in miscarriage of justice.
8. In above facts and circumstances, the request now made by the
appellants for the case to be remitted to the tribunal for further inquiry
must be accepted so that they can bring home the necessary evidence
to prove co-relation between the injuries and the cardiac failure
leading to the death. Needless to add, if they succeed in establishing
this connection, they would be entitled to compensation as if it were
the claim case arising out of the fatal accident rather than being made
to feel satisfied with the meager award on account of injuries as has
been granted by the impugned judgment.
9. The proceedings of the Tribunal indicates the case was not
properly prosecuted or inquired into, part of the blame for this being
on account of inadequate or deficient assistance from the side of the
counsel for the claimants. If the Tribunal, in the further inquiry, finds
similar deficiency, it shall take suitable steps possibly by appointing
an amicus curiae or taking assistance of an advocate from legal
services authority.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment is set aside.
The case is remitted to the Tribunal for further inquiry in accordance
with law and for fresh decision.
11. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 18.08.2017.
12. Needless to add, the case being of old vintage, the tribunal shall
give primacy and hold expeditious proceedings so as to render its
fresh judgment at an early date not later than three months from the
date of next appearance mentioned above. All parties and their
respective counsel are directed to co-operate with the Tribunal.
13. The pending application also stands disposed of.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 21, 2017
vk
