1 2025:CGHC:50197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1214 of 2017 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Bramh Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Gurukripa Towers, Ilnd Floor, Vyapar Vihar, Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. ... Apellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Soni Bai Wd/o Late Dashrath, Aged About 48 Years Occupation House Wife, By Caste Bargah, R/o Village Shyam Nagar, P. S. Bhatgaon Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Balkrishna S/o Late Dashrath, Aged About 29 Years Occupation Agriculture, By Caste Bargah, R/o Village Shyam Nagar, P. S. Bhatgaon Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Keshwar Prasad S/o Late Dashrath, Aged About 19 Years Occupation Student, By Caste Bargah, R/o Village Shyam Nagar, P. S. Bhatgaon Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Smt. Kamla W/o Lalman, Aged About 32 Years D/o Late Dashrath, R/o Village Karshu, P. S. Jai Nagar, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Devanti, W/o Baldev, Aged About 30 Years D/o Late Dashrath, R/o Village Karaundamuda Veerpith P. S. Jai Nagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Mankumari W/o Lalman, Aged About 26 Years D/o Late Dashrath, R/o Village Sonpur, Out Post Basdai, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Kamlawati W/o Munshiram, Aged About 24 Years D/o Late Dashrath, R/o Village Bilaro, P. S. Jai Nagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Raju Dubey @ Rajeev Dubey, S/o Late Raghunandan Dubey, Aged About 48 Years R/o R. T. I. Colony, Vishrampur, Qr. No. 1134, P. S. Vishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.....Driver Of Vehicle Ambulance Bearing Registration No. C G 15 A 9217., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Depot. Officer S.E.C.L. Bishrampur Area, District - Surguja (Now Surajpur) Chhattisgarh 797226 Surguja (Now Surajpur Chhattisgarh) (As Per Honble Court Order Dated. 11/01/2024). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 7 : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/10/2025 1. This is insurer’s appeal against the award dated 15.5.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District- Surajpur in CNR No. CGSJ010000722012. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the respondents and claimants, on 29.03.2012, the deceased Dashrath was referred by Mission Hospital, Ambikapur, and was being taken to Apollo Hospital by an ambulance bearing registration number CG-15A-9217 for better treatment. On the way, respondent No. 8 drove the ambulance rashly and negligently, causing it to overturn, which resulted in injuries to Dashrath, who subsequently died from those injuries. Following his death, his wife, two sons, and four married daughters filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 31,00,000 against Respondents No. 8, 9, and the appellant. The appellant Insurance Company denied the claim, arguing that Dashrath's death was not accidental but due to heart failure as per the post-mortem report, which showed no injuries on his body; they also claimed there was no evidence of the ambulance overturning and stated that Dashrath was brought to Ambikapur hospital already deceased. The insurance company further 4 contended that Respondent No. 8 did not have a valid driving license and that the ambulance was driven in violation of the insurance policy terms, praying for dismissal of the claim petition. Respondent No. 8 also denied the allegations, stating that the ambulance was insured and driven by a licensed driver, and claimed the accident occurred when a Bolero vehicle hit the ambulance from the left side, causing it to overturn and disconnect Dashrath’s oxygen pipe, leading to his death at the spot. Respondent No. 9 denied the claim as well, stating that Dashrath was already ill and died from fear of the accident while being taken to Bilaspur for treatment, confirming the ambulance's valid insurance and licensing. After inquiry, the learned tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 12,11,136 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization against the appellant Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is unsustainable in law and ought to be set aside. He further submits that the appellant has successfully led credible medical evidence, including the testimony of Dr. K.R. Tekam who conducted the post-mortem examination, establishing beyond doubt that the cause of death of the deceased, Dashrath, was not accidental but due to natural causes, specifically heart failure arising from 5 shock and chronic pulmonary deterioration, with no injuries detected on the body. This medical evidence decisively disproves the claimants’ assertion of accidental death and therefore negates any liability for compensation on the part of the appellant Insurance Company. Further, it is established that the deceased had been paralytic for five years preceding the alleged incident dated 29.03.2012 and was not engaged in any employment with SECL during that period, a fact admitted by the claimant’s own witness AW2 in cross-examination. Despite this, the learned Tribunal erroneously relied on a salary slip dated January 2007, an irrelevant and stale document, to determine the deceased’s monthly income and awarded compensation accordingly, which is legally impermissible and warrants interference. Moreover, the claimant side failed to adduce any direct evidence or witnesses to substantiate the deceased’s employment status or income, and the salary slip was neither proved nor verified by the employer, demonstrating a gross misappreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. It is also noteworthy that multiple persons were traveling in the ambulance at the time of the alleged accident, none of whom sustained injuries, further reinforcing that the deceased did not die as a result of any accident. Finally, the Tribunal’s quantum of compensation is inflated, as only the wife of the deceased is entitled to compensation; accordingly, a 6 deduction of 50% towards the deceased’s personal expenses should have been applied instead of the one-third deducted by the Tribunal. In light of these facts and for all the reasons stated herein, the appellant Insurance Company prays that the award be quashed and set aside, with the appellant absolved from any liability to pay compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 7 opposes the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that he learned claims Tribunal has correctly found on a preponderance of evidence that the death of Dashrath was causally linked to the negligent driving of the ambulance by Respondent No. 8, which overturned and caused fatal injuries, notwithstanding the insurance company’s argument based on the post-mortem report indicating heart failure. The tribunal’s finding is supported by credible testimony and the circumstances of the accident, including the fact that the oxygen supply was disconnected due to the overturn, directly contributing to the death. The insurance company failed to provide conclusive evidence to disprove the accident or to negate liability, and the claimants sufficiently established their right to compensation. 7 Moreover, the challenge to the quantum of compensation, including the relevance of the salary slip and entitlement of family members, does not warrant setting aside the award but calls for minor adjustment, if any. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat