1 2025:CGHC:46042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 689 of 2018 1 - Smt. Geeta Bai Verma Wd/o Bharatlal Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post And P.S. Suhela, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ghanshyam Prasad Verma S/o Late Bharatlal Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post And P.S. Suhela, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Sukh Singh S/o Laxman Singh Gond R/o Bhadrapara, Balco, P.S. Balco, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.12 C 3020), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Abhay Kumar Ghosh S/o Sudhir R/o Ward No.2, Balram Colony, Korba, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.12 C 3020), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, G.E.Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.12 C 3020), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Mamta Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/09/2025 1. The claimants have filed the present petition seeking enhancement of the compensation award in relation to a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.12.2010, in which one Bharat Lal Verma (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") sustained multiple grievous injuries, including fractures in the left leg and hip bone, as well as severe trauma to both hands, the head, and various other parts of the body. Following the accident, the deceased was admitted to a hospital where he remained under medical care from 21.12.2010 to 05.01.2011, and continued to receive treatment thereafter. The claimants contend 3 that the physical injuries sustained in the accident led to the development of a severe mental disorder, specifically depression, which ultimately culminated in the deceased’s suicide on 14.11.2011, while he was still employed as a Clerk at the Gramin Sahkari Samiti, Sohela. In light of these circumstances, the claimants argue that the death was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident, and therefore, the case ought to be treated as one involving a fatality. Accordingly, the appellants being the legal representatives of the deceased have submitted a claim for a total compensation amounting to Rs. 10,30,000/-. 2. The Learned Claims Tribunal, after thoroughly examining and considering all aspects of the matter in detail, concluded that the death of the deceased was not attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the case should be treated as one of injury rather than fatality. Based on this assessment, the Tribunal awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 1,85,232/- in favor of the claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in law by failing to properly adjudicate the matter, as the deceased committed suicide as a direct consequence of the injuries sustained. Since the death is the outcome of the injuries inflicted upon the deceased, the claimants 4 are entitled to appropriate compensation, and the case ought to have been treated as a death claim. To support this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Venugopal and others vs. Paulson and others (2009 ACJ 1781), which affirms that where death results from injuries, including instances of suicide attributable to such injuries, the claimants must be duly compensated. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing respondent No. 3 firmly opposes the arguments put forth by the counsel for the appellants and claimants, contending that the suicide committed by the injured party bears no causal connection whatsoever to the accident in which the deceased, Bharat Lal Verma, sustained severe injuries. The tribunal, having carefully examined this crucial aspect, conducted a thorough review of the entire matter, including a detailed evaluation of all evidence presented by the parties involved. After a comprehensive consideration, the tribunal concluded that the death of Bharat Lal Verma did not result from the injuries sustained in the accident. Consequently, the tribunal treated the matter as an injury case rather than one involving death, and accordingly, passed an award amounting to Rs. 1,85,232/-. Given the reasoned findings and the evidence on record, this award is well-founded and does not warrant any interference. 5 5. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. A careful and detailed examination of the record reveals that the accident in question occurred on 21.12.2010, following which the deceased received medical treatment from that date until 5.1.2011. After being discharged from the hospital, the injured claimant tragically committed suicide on 14.11.2011, while employed at Gramin Sahkari Samiti Sohela. This subsequent event, however, bears no causal connection or nexus to the original accident. Consequently, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation related to the claimant’s later death, and thus, the matter cannot be classified or treated as a death claim. The tribunal has accurately and appropriately evaluated the circumstances of the case and rightly concluded that the claimant’s death should not be considered for compensation under the death claim provisions. Given the sound reasoning and proper appreciation of facts by the tribunal, there is no justifiable ground for interference with its decision. 8. With regard to the matter of compensation, it is evident that the Tribunal has failed to conduct a thorough and accurate assessment that aligns with the applicable legal standards. The evaluation carried out does not reflect a proper consideration of 6 all relevant factors as mandated by law, resulting in an incomplete and insufficient determination. Consequently, the compensation awarded falls short of what is just and appropriate under the governing legal framework, indicating a clear departure from the principles and procedures that should guide such assessments. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:” "17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation 7 exceeding the claimed amount." 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards attendant ,Rs. 20,000/- towards transportation, Rs. 30,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 75,000/- towards pain and suffering are hereby enhanced. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,45,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat