1 2025:CGHC:31168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1838 of 2019 1 - Shyam Banjare (Dead) S/o Gopal Banjare 1.(A) Parmila W/o Late Shyam Banjare Aged About 33 Years . 1.B) Naresh (Minor) S/o Late Shyam Banjare Aged About 14 Years Minor 1.(C) Puja Banjare (Minor) D/o Late Shyam Banjare Aged About 12 Years Minor 1. (D) Umang Banjare (Minor) S/o Late Shyam Banjare Aged About 7 Years No.1B to 1C all are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Parmila Banjare, W/o Late Shyam Banjare, All are R/o Kohroud, Police Station Kasdol, Tahsil Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Bhugeshwar Khunte S/o Sukhilal Khunte Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bamhanpuri, Police Station Sarsiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration Number CG04/EA/0136). 2 - Samimbano Mohammad W/o Vasimraja Mohammad, R/o House Number 17/194, Near Satnamipara, Moudahapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration Number CG04/EA/0136) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Division Office Raipur, Branch Office Garden Chowk, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration Number CG4/EA/0136. ….Respondents For Appellants : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.23 10:34:06 +0530 2 Order On Board 08/07/2025 1. The claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 14.08.2019, passed in Claim Case No. 135/2017, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) dismissed the application for grant of compensation. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 09.02.2017, injured/applicant - Shyam Banjare was travelling from Raipur to Balodabazar in Bus bearing No.C.G.-04EA-0136. Non-applicant No.1, while driving the said bus in a rash and negligent manner overturned it near Sakri Bypass Road and caused accident. In the said accident, Shyam Banjare suffered grievous injuries on his face, right arm, right knee and penetrating injury over his jaw. 3. Initially, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the injured, Shyam Banjare, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. However, after sometime, Shyam Banjare unfortunately passed away on 08.07.2018. Subsequently, the original claim for compensation was pursued by his legal heirs i.e. wife and children. They continued the proceedings and amended the claim petition to seek total compensation of Rs.22,37,300/- on account of the death of their husband and father of respective claimants. 3 4. Non-applicant No.1 filed his reply in response to the application, denying the allegations made therein. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, he was driving the bus with due care and caution. A truck, being driven negligently, collided with the bus near Sakri bypass. He further asserted that he was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the incident. 5. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply to the application denying the averment made in the application. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, applicant No.1 was not holding valid driving license. The offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy without any fitness and permit. 6. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the claimants failed to establish the death of the injured due to the injuries suffered in the alleged road accident. The Tribunal further observed that the claimant, had also failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding the expenses incurred for the treatment of the deceased for the said injuries, and accordingly dismissed the application. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim application by recording perverse findings, to the evidence on record. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to properly appreciate and consider the medical documents submitted by the claimants, which were duly marked and exhibited during the proceedings. Despite availability of 4 such material evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal overlooked these documents. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants. He pointed out that the accident occurred on 09.02.2017, which was reported to the concerned police station vide Ex.A-2 on the same day. Injured/deceased was immediately sent for MLC and as per MLC report (Ex.P-7), he suffered simple injuries. Injured - Shyam Banjare died after about one year and 5 months on 08.07.2018. There is no connection in the motor accidental injuries suffered by the deceased with his death. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application after proper appreciation and evaluation of the evidence placed on record by both parties. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 10. It is not in dispute that accident occurred on 09.02.2017 and deceased Shym Banjare died on 08.07.2018 after about one year and five months of the accident. 11. Perusal of the record would show that initially application for compensation was filed by injured - Shyam Banjare on account of the injuries suffered by him in the road accident occurred on 09.02.2017 pleading that in the alleged road accident he suffered grievous injuries on his face, right arm, right knee and penetrating injury on his jaw. During pendency of claim application, injured Shyam Banjare died on 08.07.2018 after about 1 year and 5 months of the accident and 5 original claim for compensation was pursued by his wife and children, amended the pleading alleging that injured Shyam Banjare died due to the injuries suffered by him in the road accident occured on 09.02.2017. 12. In order to prove death of injured -Shyam Banjare due to the injuries suffered in the road accident, Pramila Banjare, wife of deceased examined herself as (AW-1) and Lalit Banjare as (A.W.-2). Both the witnesses have stated that at the time of accident, deceased was travelling from Raipur to Balodabazar in the offending vehicle, which met with an accident and turned turtled due to which deceased suffered injuries on his head, hand, leg and chest. Deceased was initially taken to government hospital and thereafter he took treatment in the hospital at Raipur, where he was admitted for 15 days. The claimants have also filed certified copies of the documents of criminal case as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8, documents towards medical treatment Ex.A- 9 to Ex.A-13, and the death certificate (Ex.A.14C). Document Ex.A.3 is a certified copy of Dehiati Nalishi, which reveals that the deceased, Shyam Lal Banjare, had reported the incident himself. 13. Pramila Banjare (A.W.-1) in her evidence further stated that her husband, Shyam Banjare, underwent treatment for about one and a half years after the accident before his death on 08.07.2018. However, no treating doctor has been examined to confirm his continuous treatment during this period. Although Dr. Dinesh Kumar Verma (A.W.- 3) and Dr. O.P. Khoteshwar (A.W.-4) were examined as witnesses before the Claims Tribunal, however, both clearly stated that they did 6 not provide medical treatment to the deceased, Shyam Banjare, during the period following the accident. 14. Perusal of the record reveals that Ex.A-9 is a medical prescription/receipt from the District Hospital, Balodabazar, showing that the deceased received outpatient treatment on the date of the accident, i.e. on 09.02.2017. Ex.A-10 is a slip dated 04.07.2018 issued by an unregistered doctor. Ex.A-11 is a prescription of Dr. Dinesh Kumar Verma dated 30.06.2018, which is approximately after one year and four months of the accident. Ex.A-12 is a discharge ticket from Vajpayee Nursing Home, Balodabazar, indicating that the deceased was admitted on 26.06.2018 and discharged on 27.06.2018. Ex.A-13 is a prescription from Balaji Nursing Home. However, none of the treating doctors or medical professionals related to these documents have been examined before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is not conclusively established that the deceased was continuously undergoing treatment for injuries suffered by him in the road accident over the span of one and a half years, or that he died as a result of those injuries. 15. The claimants have placed on record the medical documents (Ex.A-9 to Ex.A-13) to show treatment of the injured Shyam Banjare; however, these are only prescriptions, not cash memos. As per the MLC report (Ex.A-7), the injuries were simple in nature, and no reliable documentary evidence has been provided to prove any expenses incurred in treatment. Pramila Banjare (A.W-1) also did not testify of having spent any money on her husband's treatment. The claimants have not produced any credible or medical evidence to establish a 7 direct link between the injuries suffered in the accident and his eventual death. In absence of such proof, it cannot be concluded that the Shyam Banjare died as a result of the motor accidental injuries. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that the deceased did not die due to the injuries suffered in the road accident, which does not call for any interference. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram