The need for conclusive evidence to establish the causal connection between injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident and the subsequent death, and the application of the standard of preponderance of probability in assessing motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Gohain, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (claimants).

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (Guwahati) in MAC Case No. 1646/2006, whereby, the respondents claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 8,81,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim till realization as compensation for the death of the deceased Sh. Ajoy Kumar Baishya, who is the husband of the respondent No. 1 and the father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The main ground of challenge by the appellant insurance company is that the deceased died due to hepatic failure/ liver failure after about 7 months from the date of the accident and therefore, his death is not attributable to the motor accident on the basis of which, claim for compensation was being made. It is the case of the appellant that although the post mortem report of the deceased speaks about some injuries which were ante-mortem and consistent with vehicular accident but however, the opinion or evidence of the treating Doctor was not led by the claimants to establish that the deceased died due to the motor vehicular accident. As such, the appellant contends that the Judgment and Order of the Tribunal is misconceived and erroneous. Being aggrieved thus, the appellant is before this Court.

3. Brief facts of the case is that on 21.05.2006, the deceased Ajoy Kumar Baishya was travelling by an Auto rickshaw from Baihata side towards Guwahati. On reaching Saraighat Bridge, one truck bearing Registration No. ML- 10/5084 coming from the opposite direction dashed against the Auto rickshaw from the front side and as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and a fracture on his right leg, hip joint and other parts of his body. He was taken to Sanjeebani Hospital, Maligaon and thereafter on the next day, he was shifted to Guwahati Medical College Hospital (GMCH) and was treated as indoor patient w.e.f. 22.05.2006 to 18.07.2006. As a result, the deceased filed a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. However, he expired on 25.01.2007 and therefore his legal heirs i.e. his wife and two daughters amended the claim as a death case. Consequently, the Tribunal vide Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2013 disposed of the claim by awarding compensation to the claimants as already mentioned hereinabove.

4. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the PostMortem examination report exhibited as Exhibit-2 by the claimants, it was opined that death was caused due to hepatic failure. The injuries were ante-mortem and consistent with vehicular accident. However, the opinion of the treating orthopedic Doctor was found to be essential and accordingly, a remark to this effect was made in the said report. Despite this, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusive finding that the injured died due to the injury sustained by him in the motor vehicular accident. As such, the finding of the Tribunal is only misconceived and erroneous and liable to be interfered with. He further submits that the discharged certificate exhibited by the claimants as Exhibit-4 does not indicate that the injury sustained by the deceased was due to a motor vehicular accident. By referring to Exhibit-5 (17) and 5 (18), the learned counsel submits that the same only shows that the deceased was having kidney and liver problem. Although, such examination was done during the time of his hospitalization but nevertheless, it shows that the deceased was having kidney and liver problem even at that time. He further submits that there are no documents or evidence to connect that the kidney and liver problem are attributable to the injuries sustained by the deceased in the motor vehicular accident. He also submits that afte