1 2025:CGHC:41882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 473 of 2018 1 - Smt. Devki Sahu (Died And Deleted) As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 07-07-2025 And 25-07-2025. 2 - Krishna Sahu S/o Late Shri Shivkumar Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Purana Bazar Chowk, Kurud, P.S. And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Balram Sahu S/o Late Shri Shivkumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Purana Bazar Chowk, Kurud, P.S. And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sudama Sahu S/o Late Shri Shivkumar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Purana Bazar Chowk, Kurud, P.S. And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Abhishek Gupta S/o Sunil Gupta Aged About 22 Years R/o Guptapara, Arang, P.S. And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Swift Desire Car Bearing Registration C.G.04/k.X./1110), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sunil Kumar Gupta S/o Late Chandrashekhar Gupta Aged About 49 Years R/o Guptapara, Arang, P.S. And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Swift Desire Car Bearing 2 Registration C.G.04/k.X./1110), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch No.1, Madina Building Katchhari Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Swift Desire Car Bearing Registration C.G.04/k.X./1110), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/08/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No.164 of 2016, wherein the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the claimants/appellants. 2. Facts of the present case, in brevity, are that The present appellants are the claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, namely, Shivkumar Sahu. The Appellant No.1 being his wife and Appellants No.2 to 4 his sons. The respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.2 is the driver, and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle, a Swift Dzire bearing registration no. CG-04-KX-1110. As per the claimants, on 10.01.2016, the deceased was travelling with his daughter and grandson from Kurud to Raipur in a Swift Dzire bearing registration no. CG-04-FF-0009, when near Village Birejhar, the offending vehicle, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2, coming from the opposite direction, collided 3 head-on with the vehicle of the deceased. As a result of the impact, the deceased sustained grievous head injuries and was admitted to M.M.I. Hospital, Raipur, where he succumbed to the injuries during treatment on 05.02.2016. An FIR was registered at Police Chowki Birejhar, under Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, vide Crime No. 59/2016 under Section 304-A of IPC, though the final charge sheet was filed only under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, excluding Section 304-A. The claimants thereafter filed Claim Case No. 164/2016 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation of 50,50,000/- under various ₹ heads, including loss of dependency, love and affection, estate, medical and funeral expenses, asserting that the deceased, aged 63 years, was engaged in hotel business earning 30,000–40,000 ₹ per month. Respondents No.1 and 2, in their written statements, denied all material allegations but admitted the existence of a valid insurance policy. Respondent No.3, the insurer, also filed a reply denying all claims made by the petitioners. Hence this appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the claim petition, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate Exhibit P-26, which clearly records that a medical opinion from an autopsy specialist/surgeon was required; however, despite such query, no autopsy certificate was placed on 4 record by the respondents. The Tribunal also failed to properly consider the uncontroverted testimony of the appellants’ witnesses, who consistently stated that the accident occurred on 10.01.2016 and that the report was lodged on 03.02.2016, which remained unrebutted by any of the respondents’ witnesses. Further, the Tribunal ignored vital evidence regarding the deceased’s occupation and income—he was running a motel business and earning 30,000–40,000 per month—and failed to ₹ consider the income tax certificate marked as Exhibit P-14 in support of such income. Moreover, the Tribunal did not adequately consider the fact that the deceased remained admitted in M.M.I. Hospital, Raipur, for about 15–17 days prior to his death, thereby incurring substantial medical expenses. In view of the above, the appellants pray for setting aside the impugned judgment and for allowing the claim petition in the interest of justice. 4. However, after hearing learned counsel for the appellants at length, and upon perusal of the record and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence placed before it and arrived at a well- reasoned conclusion. Despite opportunities, the appellants failed to adduce sufficient medical or documentary evidence to establish a direct causal link between the accident and the death of the deceased, particularly in the absence of a post-mortem report or a competent medical opinion establishing such connection. Furthermore, the alleged income of the deceased and the claims 5 under various heads remained largely unsubstantiated beyond oral assertions. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot be faulted for having dismissed the claim petition. 5. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any specific illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The submissions made are reiterations of arguments already considered and dealt with in detail by the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal, and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA