'°'». •^ fe •\:<s ^ - ^- 2^0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (C) No. 251 of 2007 1. Smt. Devki Bai W/o Late Shankar, aged about 40 years. 2. Vijay S/o Late Shankar, aged about 23 years 3. Ajay S/o Late Shankar, aged about 21 years. 4. Santosh S/o Late Shankar, aged about 12years. 5. Amit S/o Late Shankar, aged about 10years. Appellant No. 4 & 5 are minor through their mother Smt. Devki Bai W/o Shankar. All are R/o Village, Hat-Kachora, Tahsil-Jagdalpur Distt. Baster (CG). VERSUS 1 ! Respondents Non-Claimants 3. 4. Abhijit Rai Choudhary S/o Satyendranath Choudhary, aged about 35 years, occupation-Service, R/o Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Baster (CG). Smt. Neelam Rai Choudhary W/o Abhijit Rai Choudhary, aged about 30 years, occupation-service, R/o Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Baster (CG) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anupama Chock, Jagdalpur (CG). L. Ishwar Rao S/o Late appeal Swami, aged about 46 years R/o Santoshi Ward Jagdalpur, Baster (CG). l'-^/\/ <^ »-•/ -^' "^ '•^ -•--"T-; ,5 5. L. Rishi Naidu S/o Ishwar Rao, R/o Santoshi Ward, Jagdalpur Baster MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Indrasen Sahu, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Sanjay S. Agarwal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (11th May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The appellants/ claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.11,2006, passed in Claim Case No.148/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.13,95,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Shanker, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death on 21.07.2005 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.02.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.30,000/- holding that the claimants could not establish that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 3) Initially, a claim petition was filed by injured Shanker under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.13,95,000/-forthe injuries sustained byhim inthe motor accident on 19.02.2005. During the pendency of the above claim petition '-^'-^, ^v, injured Shanker died on 21.07.2005. After the death of injured Shanker the present claimants, unfortunate widow and children of Shanker amended the above claim petition by seeking compensation for the death of Shanker pleading that Shanker died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 4) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence though found that Shanker sustained injuries in the motor accident on 19.02.2005, further held that the claimants could not establish that Shanker died on 21.07.2005 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.02.2005. The Tribunal, therefore, considering it to be a claim for personal injury awarded a total sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum. 5) Shri Indrasen Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the claimants could not establish that deceased Shanker died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident and awarding only Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 6) Shri Sanjay S. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Santro Car, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that asthe claimants could not establish any connection between the death of Shanker on 21.07.2005 with the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.02.2005, the Tribunal has rightly awarded only Rs.30,000/- as compensation considering it to be a claim for personal injuries. 7) It is not in dispute that Shanker died on 21.07.2005 after five months of the accident which took place on 19.02.2005. No postmortem report was produced before the Tribunal to establish that Shanker died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.02.2005. It has also come in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the claimants that deceased Shanker after having remained for few days in the hospital after the accident, was discharged from the hospital and was in his village for a period of about five months before his death on 21.07.2005. The medical evidence of AW3 Dr. K. Vinay Kumar is of no help to the claimants on the above issue as he has not even stated in his evidence that the injuries found by him on Shanker on his medical examination on 24.02.2005 were sufficient or likely to result in his death. In the absence of conclusive medical evidence to connect the death of Shanker with the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, the baldstatement of AW1 Smt.Devki Bai, the widow of the deceased and AW2 Dayadaan, in our opinion, is not sufficient to hold that Shanker died after five months of the accident on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that the claimants miserably failed in establishing that deceased Shanker died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.02.2005. f. 9) As the claimants could not establish that deceased Shanker died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, the claim petition on account of the death of claimant Shanker during the pendency of the claim petition could have been prosecuted by his legal representatives only to alimited extent. 10) The compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, in view of the above mentioned reasons does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 11) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 12) No orcler as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge nimmi