The counsel for the Insurance Company has rightly submitted that even if the said report is considered in evidence without the examination of the doctor concerned, still it would not help the claimants to show that the accident in question was the direct cause of death of Pushpal Singh. He suffered only a supracondylar fracture of left side. As per the statement of PW-2 Baldev Singh, eyewitness the deceased, Pushpal Singh had received only one injury on his right hand. The claimants have not led any other evidence in this regard to connect the death with the accident. 2 and a certificate described as cause of death issued by the Medical Officer, High Court Dispensary, Mumbai as Ex. In the instant case, the only relevant evidence on this point produced by the petitioners is a copy of postmortem report Ex. Consequently, the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained." "It is not the case, where the injured was taken to house after being discharges from the Hospital or that no proper treatment was given to him. State of Haryana : 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 330 held as under:. The learned counsel for the respondent relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court titled as Dara Singh v. The Court below has rightly concluded that the death is not relatable to the accident Ex. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that it is a simple fracture and there is no nexus between the occurrence of the death and the injury. The learned Tribunal has failed to give proper opportunity to the appellants to adduce the proper evidence.ģ. 3 against the appellants/claimants and failed to draw the inference regarding the cause of death occurred just within few days of the accident. The learned counsel argued that the learned Tribunal has wrongly decided issue No. The accident took place on whereas, the victim died on. "Cause of death is due to cardio-respiratory failure in a case of Supracondylar Fracture left side while Intubation of Anesthesia."Ģ. The finding recorded runs contrary to the postmortem report on record. It is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim petition, by holding that the death is not the direct result of the injury suffered by the deceased in the accident. This is claimants' appeal challenging the impugned award dated, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby, the claim petition has been dismissed.
0 kommentar(er)
