Gauhati High Court
MACApp./657/2017 on 10 March, 2025
Page 1 of 11
GAHC010154752017
2025:GAU-AS:2592
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MACAPP No. 657/2017
United India Insurance Company
Limited Having its registered Office at
24 Whites Road, Chennai 600014 and
Regional Office at ABC, Bhangagarh,
Guwahati-781005, Assam represented
by its Regional Manager.
.....Appellant
Versus-
1. Dalimon Bewa,
W/o-Late Surman Ali.
2. Sanowara Khatun,
W/o Late Surman Ali.
3. Sahana Masruna Prabin,
D/o- Late Surman Ali,
Represented By Her Month Sanowara Khatun,
All are Resident of Village-Bapurbhita,
P.S. Baguan, District- Golaghat, Assam,
Pin-783129.
4. Taher Ali,
MACApp. No. 657 of 2017 Page1
Page 2 of 11
S/o- Late Noji Sk. Vill. Kathalguri,
K/Bhotgaon, P.S. and District-Kokrajhar, Assam,
Pin-783370.
5. Samsul Alom,
S/o Nowsad Ali,
Vill. Charai Khosra, Chunari,
P.S. Lakhipur, District-Goalpara, Assam.
.....Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Islam, Advocate.
Date of judgment : 10.03.2025.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. R. Islam, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.
1 to 3.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, i.e. United
India Insurance Company Limited, impugning the judgment and
award dated 12.07.2016, passed by the learned Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara in MAC Case No. 85/2014,
whereby, the appellant was directed to pay a compensation of
Rs. 5,63,401/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty-three Thousand Four
MACApp. No. 657 of 2017 Page2
Page 3 of 11
Hundred One only) to the claimants with interest @ 6% per
annum from 19.10.2025 till the date of realization.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in
brief, are that, on 31.12.2012 at about 2:00 PM, the husband of
the claimant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Surman Ali, was coming out
from Bharat Petroleum Refilling Station of Bapuji Nagar after
refilling fuel in his motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-18-A-
7481. When Surman Ali reached PWD Road from the refilling
station and was going towards Bhalukdubi, another vehicle
bearing Registration No. AML-1718 (407 mini bus), knocked him
down on the road from backside. As a result, Surman Ali
sustained grievous injuries on his person. Soon after the
accident, he was taken to Goalpara Civil Hospital and thereafter,
to Dispur Hospital, at Guwahati. He was treated for a long time
and ultimately, he succumbed to his injuries on 27.01.2014.
4. After the death of Surman Ali, his wives (claimant Nos. 1 and 2
and one minor daughter) filed a claim petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Member,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara claiming compensation
for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident,
involving vehicle bearing Registration No. AML-1718 (407 mini
bus), which was insured with the United India Insurance
Company Limited, i.e., the present appellant.
MACApp. No. 657 of 2017 Page3
Page 4 of 11
5. The appellant insurance company contested the claim case. The
driver of the offending vehicle also filed a written statement.
However, the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the
claim and the claim case proceeded ex parte against him.
6. Upon pleadings of the parties following issues were framed for
determination by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Goalpara:-
i. Whether the deceased Surman Ali died as a result of
injuries sustained by him in the alleged motor vehicular
accident dated 31.12.2012 involving vehicle bearing
registration No. AML-1718 (407 mini bus), and whether
the said accident had taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation
and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the
opposite party the said compensation will be payable.
7. The claimants side examined 1(one) witness to prove their case.
However, the opposite party, including the present appellant did
not examine any witness.
8. Ultimately, on completion of the inquiry, both the issues were
decided in affirmative in favour of the claimants and a
compensation amount of Rs. 5,63,401/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
Sixty-three Thousand Four Hundred One only) was awarded to
MACApp. No. 657 of 2017 Page4
Page 5 of 11
the claimants, along with an interest, @ 6% per annum from
19.10.2015 till the date of realization.
9. The appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal
against the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that there
is no evidence to show that the deceased Surman Ali died, as a
result of the injuries sustained by him, in the vehicular accident
which occurred on 31.12.2012.
10. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that accident in which the deceased, Surman Ali,
sustained injuries occurred on 31.12.2012, however, Surman Ali
died on 27.01.2014, i.e., after a period of about 1 year 26 days
from the date of said accident. He further submits that there is
no documents on record to show that the death of Surman Ali
was due to the injuries sustained by him in the vehicular
accident, which occurred on 31.12.2012. He further submits that
the only document, available on record, are the MDCT scan of
brain (Exhibit-17) issued by the Dispur Hospital and there is no
other document to show that he was under continuous treatment
till the date of his death in respect of the injuries sustained by
him in the accident which took place on 31.12.2012.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in holding
that the deceased died as a result of accident and that till his
MACApp. No. 657 of 2017 Page5
Page 6 of 11
death he was under regular medical treatment as no document
is there on record to substantiate this claim.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that
the medical certificate, which is exhibited by the claimant as
Exhibit-6, also shows that the probable cause of death might be
cardiopulmonary arrest, which indicates that there is no
connection with the cause of death of the deceased Surman Ali
with the injuries sustained by Surman Ali. He also submits that
as the doctor who issued Exhibit-6, was not examined as a
witness, the said document is also not reliable.
13. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the
appellant has cited following rulings:-
i. “Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Junu
Baishya And Others,” reported in “2019 0
Supreme(Gau) 959;”
ii. “Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.‘ reported in
“(2011)1 SCC 343.”
14. On the other hand, Mr. R. Islam, the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3, (claimants), has submitted that the
learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has correctly
decided the claims case and has correctly awarded the
compensation amount to the claimants for the death of Surman
MACApp. No. 657 of 2017 Page6
Page 7 of 11
Ali due to the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicular
accident, which occurred on 31.12.2012.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 has
submitted that the deceased Surman Ali sustained grievous
injuries on his person, due to the vehicular accident which
occurred on 31.12.2012 because of rash and negligent driving of
the vehicle by the driver of the offending vehicle. He submits
that the deceased was treated in Goalpara Civil Hospital as well
as in Dispur Hospital, Pvt. Ltd. at Guwahati.
16. Thereafter, he was under continuous treatment at Chirakuti
PHC, Dhubri for various complications, which resulted due to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on
31.12.2012. He submits that the death of the deceased was not
unconnected to the injuries sustained by him in the accident
which occurred on 31.12.2012.
17. He further submits that the insurance company or any of the
opposite party failed to adduce any evidence to counter the
evidence adduced by the claimant’s side before the learned
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the
evidence adduced by the claimant’s side remained intact and the
compensation awarded to the claimants should not be interfered
with. He submits that merely because the death of Surman Ali
occurred after a period of 01 year 26 days, from the date of the
MACApp. No. 657 of 2017 Page7
Page 8 of 11
accident, same may not be a ground for coming to a conclusion
that death was not caused due to the injuries sustained by the
deceased in the accident.
18. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 has relied upon the ruling of the
High Court of Madras in the case of “Chandrasekar (died) and
others Vs. Kandasamy and others [CMA No. 2245 of 2017].”
19. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials
available on record, including the case record of MAC Case No.
85/2014, which was requisitioned in connection with this appeal.
20. It appears that the main contention of the appellant in this
appeal, is that, the death of Surman Ali, who died on
27.01.2014, was not due to the injuries sustained by him in the
vehicular accident, which took place on 31.12.2012.
21. The appellant has mainly contended that due to absence of
any documentary evidence on record which shows that the cause
of death was the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the
finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is wrong.
22. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the fact that
the accident took place, vehicular accident in which the deceased
Surman Ali sustained injuries took place on 31.12.2012 and he
died on 27.01.2014.
MACApp. No. 657 of 2017 Page8
Page 9 of 11
23. There is no dispute regarding the law that in a claims case,
the claimants are merely to establish their case on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability and the standards of
proof beyond reasonable doubts cannot be applied in such cases.
24. In the instant case, the claimant No. 2 namely, Sanowara
Khatun, who is the wife of the deceased Surman Ali had adduced
her evidence as PW-1. In her testimony, she has deposed that
her husband Surman Ali was under continuous treatment after
the accident and during the course of his treatment for head
injury, he expired on 27.01.2014. Though she exhibited the
medical certificate as Exhibit-6, i.e., the certificate issued by the
doctor of Chirakuti PHC as well as Exhibit-17, which is the MDCT
scan of the brain of the deceased, and was done at Dispur
hospital on 30.08.2013, however, during her cross-examination
by the insurance company, the testimony of PW-1 to the effect
that her husband was under continuous treatment till his death
could not be demolished by the insurance company. The
insurance company has adduced no evidence to contradict the
testimony of PW-1. Further, though the Exhibit-6 suggests that
the probable cause of death might be cardiopulmonary arrest, in
absence of any contradictory evidence, it may not be ruled out
that such cardiopulmonary arrest might also be due to the
previous injuries sustained by the disease on his head in the
vehicular accident which occurred on 31.12.2012.
MACApp. No. 657 of 2017 Page9
Page 10 of 11
25. Though there is a time period of 1 year 28 days between the
date of accident and date of death of the deceased Surman Ali,
however, the evidence of PW-1 shows that there might be a
nexus between the accident and the death of her husband
Surman Ali. As the Insurance Company has not adduced any
evidence to counter the evidence of PW-1, the testimony of PW-
1 remained intact, hence, the possibility of a nexus between the
injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident and the cause
of death may not be ruled out.
26. Under such circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion
that benefits should accrue to the claimants and compensation
granted by the Tribunal in this case does not warrants any
interference by this Court.
27. On perusal of Exhibit-6, it appears that the deceased Surman
Ali was under the treatment of Medical Officer of Chirakuti PHC,
for the complications which he was going through after
discharge from Dispur Nursing Home.
28. On perusal of Exhibit-22, it appears that during the brain CT
scan of the deceased, it was found that he was suffering from
temporal parietal subdural hematoma with right temporal
hemorrhagic contusions.
29. Thus, the doctor under whose treatment the deceased was at
the time of his death has reported that he was suffering from
MACApp. No. 657 of 2017 Page10
Page 11 of 11
complications like vertigo, dizziness, headache and weakness
and has also stated in Exhibit-6 that the probable cause of death
may be cardiopulmonary arrest.
30. It may not be ruled out that the said cardiopulmonary arrest is
nowhere, linked with the injuries sustained by the deceased in
the accident, which occurred on 31.12.2012, more so, in absence
of any counter evidence by the insurance company or any of the
opposite parties.
31. For the reasons and discussions made in the foregoing
paragraph, this Court is of considered opinion that the present
appeal lacks merit and does not justify any interference by this
Court with the amount of compensation awarded to the
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by the learned Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal.
32. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
MACApp. No. 657 of 2017 Page11
