RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSMT. NEERAJ DEVI AND 8 ORS.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2191 of 2014

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

Smt. Neeraj Devi And 8 Ors.
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                    :   Rahul Sahai
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :   Bansh Narain Pathak

Court No. - 54
                       HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Shri Aditya Singh Parihar holding brief of Shri Rahul Sahai,
learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Shri Bansh
Narain Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 4.

2. In view of the office report, service of notice upon the remaining
respondents is held sufficient.

3. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
Company with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and decree
dated 3.5.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr
in M.A.C.P. No.361 of 2011 (Smt. Neeraj Dev & Ors. vs. Mohd. Mustafa
& Ors.) whereby the claim petition was allowed and an amount of
Rs.24,62,102/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant.

Brief facts

4. Briefly stated, the case of the claimants is that on 30.12.2009 at about
7:00 p.m., deceased Satendra Pal Singh, along with Santram, was
returning from Bulandshahr to village Gangroul on Hero Honda Splendor
motorcycle No. UP-13S-5063. Near Chola Power Station on
Bulandshahr-Kakod Road, tractor No. UP-14E-8307, coming from the
side of Kakod, was being driven rashly and negligently and suddenly
came on the wrong side of the road and collided with the motorcycle. The
deceased sustained serious injuries and, during treatment, died on
02.03.2011. The FIR was lodged on 31.12.2009 at Police Station Kotwali
Dehat in Crime No. 193/891/09 under Sections 279 and 338 IPC.
                                                        FAFO No. 2191 of 2014
                               2


5. Before the Tribunal, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the
petitioners. P.W.-2 Santram and P.W.-3 Bablu were examined as eye-
witnesses of the accident. P.W.-4 Dr. Sukumar Yadav was examined as
the doctor who had treated the deceased at his Nursing Home, namely
Gyan Shri Hospital, District Aligarh. The Tribunal considered the
testimony of the eye-witnesses and, after examining the evidence
available on record, held that the accident in question was proved. The
Tribunal further held the claimants entitled to compensation and awarded
a sum of Rs.24,62,102/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

Arguments by the appellant

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the
award mainly on the ground that the involvement of the alleged offending
vehicle and the cause of death of the deceased were not established. It is
submitted that the FIR was initially lodged against an unknown vehicle
and no post-mortem of the deceased was conducted.

7. It is further submitted that P.W.-1 Smt. Niraj Devi, widow of the
deceased, stated that after the accident, the deceased was initially taken to
Government Hospital, Bulandshahr, from where he was referred and
admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi on 31.12.2009. Thereafter, he was
admitted at Krishna Hospital and Trauma Centre, Ghaziabad, where he
underwent surgery and remained admitted from 31.12.2009 to
25.01.2010. He was thereafter admitted at Muskan Hospital, Aligarh from
02.11.2010 to 20.02.2011 and again at Gyan Shri Hospital, Aligarh from
23.02.2011 to 01.03.2011. It is, therefore, submitted that the deceased did
not remain continuously under treatment after the accident and died after
about fourteen months. Thus, the possibility that his death was due to
some cause other than the injuries sustained in the accident cannot be
ruled out.

8. It is further submitted that the claimants pleaded that the deceased was
working as a linesman at Power Substation, Kakod, under
Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Kendra, Uttar Pradesh, and produced his
salary slip for February, 2011. The said salary slip was relied upon by the
Tribunal for determining his monthly income at the time of the accident.
                                                        FAFO No. 2191 of 2014
                               3


According to the appellant, if the deceased was drawing salary for
February, 2011, the statement of P.W.-1 that he remained admitted at
Muskan Hospital from 02.11.2010 to 20.02.2011 becomes doubtful.
These circumstances, according to the appellant, create serious doubt
regarding the continuity of treatment as well as the nexus between the
injuries sustained in the accident and the eventual death of the deceased.

Arguments by the respondent-claimants

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants has supported the
impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated
the evidence available on record. It is submitted that P.W.-1 Smt. Niraj
Devi, widow of the deceased, had clearly stated that after the accident she
ran from pillar to post for better treatment of her husband and, during the
intervening period when he was not admitted in any hospital, he was
regularly taken to different doctors on OPD basis. Therefore, merely
because the deceased was not continuously admitted in a hospital, no
inference can be drawn that he had recovered from the injuries or that his
subsequent death was unrelated to the accident.

10. It is further submitted that the accident had taken place on 30.12.2009
and the deceased remained under treatment at different hospitals
thereafter. He underwent surgery at Krishna Hospital and Trauma Centre,
Ghaziabad and was subsequently treated at hospitals at Aligarh. He was
again admitted at Gyan Shri Hospital shortly before his death. Thus, the
medical evidence and the history of treatment establish continuity of the
injuries and treatment till his death.

11. It is also submitted that the mere fact that the FIR was initially lodged
against an unknown vehicle is of no consequence, particularly when the
involvement of tractor No. UP-14E-8307 was subsequently established
from the evidence led before the Tribunal. The testimony of P.W.-2
Santram, who was travelling with the deceased and was an eye-witness of
the accident, duly proves the manner of accident and involvement of the
offending tractor. His testimony was rightly relied upon by the Tribunal.

12. Learned counsel further submits that non-conducting of post-mortem,
by itself, does not establish that the death was due to any cause other than
                                                       FAFO No. 2191 of 2014
                               4


the injuries suffered in the accident. The deceased had remained under
treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident and ultimately died
during the course of such treatment. P.W.-4 Dr. Sukumar Yadav, who had
treated the deceased at Gyan Shri Hospital, also supports the case of the
claimants regarding his treatment.

13 It is lastly submitted that the salary slip for February, 2011 was
produced only for the purpose of establishing the income of the deceased
and the receipt of salary does not mean that he was physically fit or had
discontinued his treatment. A person may remain on the rolls of his
employer and receive salary even during a period of illness or treatment.
Therefore, the said document cannot be treated as contradicting the
statement of P.W.-1 regarding the treatment of the deceased.

14. On these grounds, it is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held
that the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle and the death of
the deceased were proved and has rightly awarded compensation of
Rs.24,62,102/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The appeal,
therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Conclusion

15. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the
death of the deceased on 02.03.2011 can be connected with the injuries
sustained by him in the accident dated 30.12.2009. P.W.-4 Dr. Sukumar
Yadav stated that the deceased was brought to his hospital on 23.02.2011
in a serious condition in connection with the accidental injuries suffered
about one and a half years earlier. He further stated that severe pus
formation and symptoms of septicaemia were present in the right knee.

16. Thus, the accident had taken place on 30.12.2009, whereas the
deceased was examined by P.W.-4 on 23.02.2011, after a gap of about
fourteen months. The doctor found severe pus formation and septicaemia
in the right knee. The injury, therefore, was on the knee and the condition
of septicaemia was noticed after such a long interval from the date of
accident.

17. Considering the statement of the doctor, the nature of the injury, the
                                                       FAFO No. 2191 of 2014
                               5


considerable gap of about fourteen months between the accident and the
treatment by P.W.-4, and the fact that septicaemia was found only at that
stage, in my considered opinion, these circumstances by themselves do
not establish a clear nexus between the injury sustained in the accident
and the subsequent death of the deceased. P.W.-4 has not stated that the
septicaemia was the result of the injury sustained in the accident or that
the death of the deceased occurred on account of the said injury. There is
also no post-mortem report or other medical evidence establishing such
causal connection.

18. It is true that the deceased had undergone treatment at different
hospitals after the accident. However, the mere fact that he was
subsequently found suffering from pus formation and septicaemia in the
right knee cannot, in the absence of specific medical evidence, establish
that these conditions were the direct consequence of the injuries sustained
in the accident fourteen months earlier.

19. Thus, the evidence of P.W.-4 establishes that the deceased was in a
serious condition and was suffering from septicaemia when he was
brought to the hospital on 23.02.2011, but it does not establish the
necessary causal link between such condition and the accident dated
30.12.2009. The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in treating the
subsequent death of the deceased as conclusively proved to have resulted
from the injuries sustained in the accident.

20. In view of the discussion made above, the finding of the Tribunal
regarding the death of the deceased being the consequence of the accident
cannot be sustained. However, it is established from the evidence on
record that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident and incurred
expenses for his treatment.

21. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,17,879/- towards medical
expenses. There is no sufficient ground to interfere with the said part of
the award. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to compensation of
Rs.1,17,879/- towards medical expenses along with interest at the rate of
7% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal.

22. Consequently, the remaining amount awarded by the Tribunal on
                                                                                             FAFO No. 2191 of 2014
                                                                    6


                                    account of the death of the deceased cannot be sustained and is liable to
                                    be set aside. The impugned award is, accordingly, modified and the
                                    compensation is reduced to Rs.1,17,879/- along with interest at the rate
                                    of 7% per annum.

                                    23. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.



                                                                                             (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    September 11, 2026
                                    SK




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad