1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 197 of 2007 1.Mona Sinha, W/o Late Subhash Chandra Prasad 2.Sushil Kumar, S/o Late Subhash Chandra Prasad 3.Mukesh Kumar, S/o Late Subhash Chandra Prasad 4.Puja Kumari, D/o Late Subhash Chandra Prasad 5.Sonam Kumari, D/o Late Subhash Chandra Prasad Appellant No.5 being minor represented through her mother and natural guardian i.e. Appellant No.1 [Mona Sinha] All R/o Chowk Bazar, Aliganj, P.O. and P.S. Aliganj, District- Jamui, Bihar and at Present R/o- C/o Sahadeo Ram, Sanjay Pathology, Nawabganj, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh. .... .. ... Appellant(s) Versus 1.Manoj Yadav, S/o Sri Dwarika Prasad at Gowalbigha, at Gowalbigha, District- Gaya and at present Bara Bazaar, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh. 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Hazaribagh, Jain Petrol Supply Co., Patna Ranchi Road, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, Hazaribagh. .. ... ...Respondent(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate Mr. Shiwam Lath & Mr. Shivam Singh, Advs. For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate …... 41/ 25.02.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The appellants/ claimants are in appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide Judgment and award dated 28.03.2007 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No.208 of 2002 under Section 166 of the M. V. Act for the death of Subhash Chandra Prasad. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the claimants/ appellants is that the deceased (Subhash Chandra Prasad) had suffered a motor vehicle accident on 02.10.2001 involving Tata-407 Minibus bearing Registration No.BR13P 9009 which dashed against a cyclist and as a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained multiple fracture and injuries and was undergoing treatment from the date of accident till the date of his death i.e. on 15.09.2002. The documents regarding his treatment have been adduced into evidence 2 and marked as Exhibits i.e. Ext. 5 to Ext. 13 and Ext. 17 to Ext. 24, Ext. 27 and Ext.34 Series. 3. The main grievance of the claimants is that although the factum of accident in which deceased sustained multiple injuries have been accepted by the learned Tribunal and compensation for medical treatment has been allowed, but the compensation for death of the deceased awarded to the claimants has not been accepted because the death took place after about 11 months after the accident. 4. It is argued that there was direct nexus between the accident and death as the deceased was under continuous treatment, finally culminating into his death. The Doctors who examined the patient found that patient was suffering from poly-trauma due to injury sustained by him, for which he was continuously under treatment and a specific reference has been made to Dr. Arun Kumar Singh (P.W.5) in Para-2 wherein he has stated that the injuries were caused due to an accident. The oral and documentary evidence established that the deceased had died due to the accidental injury suffered by him, and the weight of evidence could not have been brushed aside only because the post-mortem was not conducted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered in the case of National Insurance Com. Ltd. vs. Meenaxi Gupta & Ors., reported in AIR OnLine 2019 Delhi 1335 and the judgment dated 15.05.2019 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in M.A. No.345 of 2015 [The Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd. vs. Renu Mishra & Ors.] and also in 1998 (1) T.A.C. 772 (Pat.). 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent- Insurance Company has defended the impugned judgment of Award. It is submitted that there was not only delay of 11 months from the date of accident but C.W.2 [Doctor] has deposed in Para-5 of his cross-examination that the patient had history of peptic ulcer syndrome. The cause of death has been stated by the Doctor due to septicaemia and this has also come in the death certificate (Ext.14) of the deceased. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perusing the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the 3 deceased suffered motor vehicle accident on 02.10.2001 involving the offending vehicle i.e. BR 13P 9009. 7. The main point for determination is if the death was relatable to the accidental injuries sustained by the deceased? 8. Three Doctors have been examined in this case. C.W.2 has deposed that the deceased had suffered injury(s) i.e. forehead, chest, right-thigh and left fore-arm and after X-ray, he had found that fracture of right thigh bone and fracture of rib and fracture of forearm and was referred for treatment before the Dr. R. N. Singh, Patna. Further, C.W.4 (Dr. Ram Lakhan Rajak] has deposed that he has proved the discharge slip of the deceased which has been marked as Ext. 6 from which it will be evident that he was discharged from the Male Surgical Ward, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh on the same day i.e. 02.10.2001. 9. Further CW.5 (Dr. Arun Kumar Singh) has deposed that he was admitted in Magadh Hospital on 12.09.2002 and has died on 15.09.2002. The cause of death has been stated to be Cardio-Respiratory arrest and clinical diagnosis is septicaemia followed by polly-trauma. It was caused by accident. The prescriptions and the medical bills have been adduced into evidence which goes to show that after the accident the deceased was continuously under treatment and he finally recovered from the said accident. Proximate and immediate medical cause of death being septicaemia, does not in any case lead to an inference that death was not the cumulative result of the accidental injuries. 10. On these evidences, by preponderance of probabilities, it can be safely said death was the outcome of the long treatment of the injuries sustained in the accident. Learned Tribunal erred in allowing the compensation for expenses incurred in treatment and not for the death, for the reason that post-mortem examination was not conducted and the report was not on record. 11. Since the amount incurred in the treatment of the deceased has already been allowed and paid, therefore, there will no separate order with regard to the medical treatment bills raised on behalf of the deceased. 12. So far motor accident cases are concerned, law is settled that strict proof of fact is not required and in view of the evidence on record, there 4 cannot be any doubt that the deceased had died during the post-accident treatment which continued almost for a year. 13. As per the Income Tax Return i.e. Ext.1/2, the date of birth of the deceased was 28.10.1956 and the accident took place on 02.10.2001 and death occurred on 15.09.2002, meaning thereby, he was 46 years of age at the time of accident. The deceased had a shop and the income tax return for the Assessment Year of 1998-1999 and 2001-02 have been brought on record from which it appears that his annual income after the deduction of income tax was Rs.51,000/- per annum, as such, taking as Rs.51,000/- per annum as annual income, 46 years as his age at the time of death and five dependents, the final compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act will work out as under :- Annual income of the deceased taking Rs.51,000/- as Annual income + 30% as Future prospect Rs.51,000/- + 30% of Rs.15,300/- as Future prospect = Rs.66,300/- Annual Dependency after deducting 1/4th Rs.66,300/- Rs.16,575/- = Rs.49,725/- Multiplier taking 46 years as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident 13 Rs.49,725/- X 13=Rs.6,46,425/- Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Loss of Consortium Rs.84,000/- Rs.84,000/- Total Rs.7,30,425/- 14. The Respondent No.2- Insurance Company is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. The payment shall be made within a month from the date of this order by the Insurance Company to the learned Tribunal and thereafter the Tribunal will disburse the same as per the terms fixed to the claimants within two weeks. Misc. Appeal is accordingly, allowed. I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/