Madras High Court
M.Gurusev (Died) vs S.Balakrishnan on 29 March, 2022
C.M.A.No.572 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.572 of 2022
1.M.Gurusev (Died)
2.G.Susila
3.G.Kalaivani
4.G.Kanimozhi
(As per order passed in I.A.No.812/2018
dated 26.07.2018 the petitioners 2 to 4
are impleaded as LRs of 1st Petitioner) ... Appellants
Vs
1.S.Balakrishnan
2.The Uniter India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having its office at
No.48, Arcot Road, Saligramam,
Chennai - 600 093. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the decree and judgment dated
29.11.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.680 of 2013 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Additional District and Sessions Court),
Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.572 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
JUDGMENT
The first Appellant had filed M.C.O.P.No.680 of 2013 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamalle claiming compensation of a
sum of Rs.7,90,000/- for the injuries sustained by the first appellant in a
road accident on 11.06.2013.
2. By reason of the accident, the first appellant had sustained the
following injuries:
i. Right Eye full damaged
ii. Bone Fracture of Right hip
iii. Bone Fracture of Right side head
iv. Two teeth broken in upper side mouth
v. Bone fracture of right orbit of root.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.572 of 2022
3. The first appellant's contention is that on 11.05.2013 at about
3.15 pm, when he was walking on the G.S.T. Road, crossing the road on
the junction of the Thiruneermalai, Chennai from West to East, the first
respondent's Mahindra Bollero Car, driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner hit against the first appellant, causing grievous injuries
to him including fractures. He therefore, filed the claim petition for
compensation.
4. The first respondent remained exparte and the second
respondent/ Insurance Company had filed a counter denying the accident,
the liability of the first respondent and also questioning the quantum of
compensation sought for.
5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonamalle by its order
dated 29.11.2021 was pleased to allow the claim petition, granting
compensation of a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the Appellants. The Tribunal
below, relying on the cross examination of P.W.2, came to the conclusion
that the cause of death was only on account of Tuberculosis. Further the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.572 of 2022
accident had taken place on 11.06.2013 and the claimant had died on
07.08.2014 and therefore held that the death was totally unconnected to
the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Tribunal had, however,
proceeded to award a sum of Rs.11,000/- for the period of his
hospitalization from 03.06.2014 to 07.08.2014.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the legal heirs of the sole claimant
is before this Court.
7. Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel for the Appellant
would vehemently contend that the death was only a consequence of the
injuries sustained by the sole claimant. It is his contention that prior to
the accident, the first appellant had not suffered from tuberculosis
disease and also he had suffered a loss of eye sight on account of his
loosing immunity power on account of tuberculosis. He would also
question the failure of the Tribunal to award compensation for pecuniary
loss to the family as well as the other conventional heads.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.572 of 2022
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant arguing for an
admission. Admittedly, the accident in which the deceased/ claimant had
sustained injuries, took place on 11.06.2013. The deceased/ claimant had
been admitted to the Chrompet Government Hospital and was discharged
from the Government hospital.
9. The Tribunal below has held that the accident occurred on
account of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's driver.
However, the Tribunal had taken into account the evidence of P.W.2 -
Doctor working in the Tambaram Government Hospital, who in his cross
examination, had narrated the symptoms that the deceased/ claimant had
suffered and had opined that the deceased/ claimant was a chronic
alcoholic as well as a smoker, as a result of which, he had developed
tuberculosis and his death is only on account of tuberculosis. This
admission in cross would clearly prove that there is no nexus between the
accident and the death.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.572 of 2022
10. In the light of such a categorical admission, which the
appellants are not able to rebut or refute, the award passed by the
Tribunal has to be sustained and accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is dismissed. No Costs.
29.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
II Additional District and Sessions Court,
Tiruvallur, Poonamallee.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.572 of 2022
P.T.ASHA, J.,
ab
C.M.A.No.572 of 2022
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
