MANOJ KUMAR Vs. MANISH KUMAR RAJPUT
LAWS(CHH)-2005-8-3
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on August 16,2005

MANOJ KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
MANISH KUMAR RAJPUT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.K.Patnaik, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 18.3.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 32 of 2000, filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(2.) Relevant facts in brief are that on 28.11.1997 at about 9 p.m. Mangilal was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. CG 24-174 which was being driven by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the jeep and respondent No. 3 is the insurer. The said jeep dashed against a standing truck and as a result of the accident Mangilal suffered some injuries. After treatment in the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, for two days and thereafter in Soubhaghya Hospital, Durg for about a month, he returned home and died on 11.2.1998. Appellants, the two major sons of deceased Mangilal, filed the aforesaid claim case before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal held in the impugned award that the appellants have not been able to establish a nexus between the injuries suffered by the deceased in the said accident and his death and accordingly dismissed the claim case filed by the appellants.
(3.) Mr. Yashwant Tiwari, learned counsel for appellants submits that it will be clear from the evidence of Ayurvedic doctor, Dr. P.S. Bhaghel, who was examined as AW 1, that deceased after return from Soubhaghya Hospital at Durg was placed under his treatment at home. He submits that from the evidence of AW 1 it is clear that the deceased was complaining of pain in his chest and stomach and ultimately died due to failure of his kidney and liver. He further submits that it is also evident from the evidence of AW 1 that the internal organs of the deceased, namely, liver and kidney were damaged on account of the said accident. He further argued that on account of overdoses of medicines taken by the deceased while he was under treatment at Soubhaghya Hospital, Durg, his kidney was damaged and he died. He cited the decision of Gujarat High Court in Shantaben Ambalal Sutaria v. Valjibhai Harjibhai Patel, 1992 ACJ 321 (Gujarat), in which the Tribunal had rejected the claim application on the ground that there was no nexus between the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident and death of the deceased but the High Court set aside the order of the Claims Tribunal and held that deceased died on account of the development of fat embolism due to the fracture injuries suffered by him in the accident. He also relied on the decision of Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Mariambai A. Adamji, 2003 ACJ 1353 (Gujarat).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.