JUDGMENT : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 25. 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. 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 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. 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.