Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation for Death – Proximate Cause – For a claim of death compensation, there must be clear evidence establishing a proximate causal link between the injuries sustained in the accident and the eventual death. Mere temporal proximity between accident and death is insufficient.
Medical Evidence – Importance of Post-Mortem – In absence of post-mortem, cause of death cannot be conclusively ascertained. Mere reliance on a treating doctor’s certificate, especially when the deceased had pre-existing conditions (diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cardiac strain), cannot establish accident as direct cause of death.
Injuries Not Serious in Nature – Where the injuries suffered in the accident were comparatively minor and the death occurred months later during/after a surgical procedure for a non-healing ulcer, the nexus between accident injuries and death is not proved.
Bed Rest Argument – Rejected – Contention that long bed rest following accident could have caused pulmonary embolism/myocardial infarction was rejected, there being no clear medical advice or evidence of prolonged immobility.
Scope of Compensation – Tribunal’s award for death based on presumption set aside; High Court’s restriction of claim to injury compensation upheld.
Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s judgment; no compensation payable for death as accident not shown to be proximate cause.
2025 INSC 1075
Page 1 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
Haseena & Ors.
….Appellant(s)
Versus
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
.... Respondent(s)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The claimants before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal1 were the wife, minor child and the mother of an
Excise Guard, who died, allegedly as a result of a motor
vehicle accident. The accident occurred on 29.04.2006 when
the motorcycle driven by the deceased collided with
another motorcycle, owned and driven by the fourth
respondent. The accident occurred at about 9 am and the
injured victim was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment.
1
for short, ‘the Tribunal’
Page 2 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
The victim was treated as an inpatient from 29.04.2006 till
03.05.2006 and discharged. The injuries suffered by him
were compound fracture of second, third and fourth
metatarsals of right foot and a simple fracture of the
proximal phalanx of left little finger. He also sustained a
wound at the fracture site.
2. After getting discharged, the treatment continued as
an outpatient till 12.08.2006, subsequent to which he was
referred to a higher medical centre for plastic surgery
consultation. On 18.09.2006, the victim was admitted to the
higher medical centre with a non-healing ulcer on the right
foot. The victim was advised to undergo a surgery after
which he abruptly died. The cause of death was pulmonary
embolism/acute myocardial infarction. The death occurred
on 18.09.2006, almost five months after the date of the
accident. The Tribunal found the death to be a direct
consequence of the accident which finding was overturned
by the High Court. The appeal is by the claimants against
the judgment of the High Court.
Page 3 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
3. The factum of the accident and the death is
undisputed. The controversy arose insofar as the death
occurred after five months; whether the accident was a
direct causation of the death. The High Court has
elaborately considered the evidence of PW-1, the plastic
surgeon who carried out the surgical procedure and found
the death to be not a direct cause of the accident.
4. We first looked at the order of the Tribunal which was
specifically emphasised by Mr. Shaji P. Chaly, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. The Tribunal
found merit in the submissions of the claimants that the nonhealing ulcer on the right foot was consequent to the injuries
sustained by the victim in the motor accident. The Tribunal
also observed that the injuries sustained by the deceased
victim were not so serious and though the deceased had
undergone grafting of skin in the local hospital on two
occasions, the injuries did not heal which prompted the
reference to a higher centre for plastic surgery consultation;
the local hospital having found themselves unable to further
Page 4 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
manage the medical condition. The surgery was carried out
at the higher medical centre and the patient was shifted to
post operative ward at 12:50 pm on 21.09.2006 but at 04:45
pm he developed sudden breathlessness and restlessness.
Exhibit A-1, the certificate issued by the plastic surgeon,
who was examined as PW-1 clearly reported the cause of
death as pulmonary embolism/acute myocardial infarction.
5. PW-1 affirmed Exhibit A-1 and the Tribunal found that
the proximity of the accident in which the injuries were
sustained, with the death, clearly showed the nexus
between the accident and the death. It was also found that
the cross-examination of PW-1 did not elicit any contra
indication and there was neither any heart complaint nor
hypertension or diabetics. It was hence the Tribunal found
the death to be a direct result of the injuries sustained in the
accident.
6. The High Court by the impugned judgment
elaborately considered the evidence of PW-1. PW-1 while
affirming Exhibit A-1 certificate, deposed that the surgery
Page 5 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
was conducted by reason of the non-healing ulcer and the
skin grafting was done on 21.09.2006 under spinal
anaesthesia. The patient was shifted to the ward at 12:50 pm
after which he becomes breathless and restless and
eventually succumbed at 04:45 pm on the same day. The
cause of death was stated to be as seen from Exhibit A-1.
7. In chief examination, he also stated that due to the
injuries sustained in the accident and continued treatment,
pulmonary embolism/acute myocardial infarction can be
caused if the patient continues bed rest for long. In cross
examination, PW-1 deposed on the injuries caused by the
accident, as has been mentioned above, which by itself are
not serious in nature; even according to PW1. In cross
examination, PW-1 admitted with reference to Exhibit A-9
that the victim had a history of mild blood pressure and
diabetics. Though, no cardiology check-up was held before
surgery, and no heart complaint was detected, cholesterol
was found at a high level in the preoperative tests.
Hypertrophy with strain pattern as detected in the patient
Page 6 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
was deposed to be a symptom of cardiac complaint. It also
came out in the deposition of PW-1 that postmortem was not
conducted on the deceased since his family objected to it.
PW1 also deposed that if postmortem had been done, the
cause of death could have been ascertained. It was also
clarified that in a patient, with the test results of the nature
seen from Exhibit A-9, chances of a heart attack will be
more. The mere response to the suggestions made, as to the
injuries in the accident could have also resulted in
myocardial infarction, cannot be taken as a conclusive proof
of the death having been caused by reason of the injuries
suffered in the accident.
8. Even according to PW-2, the wife of the deceased, the
victim had suffered three injuries on the right leg, a wound
and a fracture on the ring finger which was followed by skin
grafting at the local hospital and a surgical procedure by the
plastic surgeon attached to the higher medical centre and
then her husband succumbed to death. PW-2 asserted that
there was no advise of a postmortem examination and that
Page 7 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
her husband had no ailments, but, the non-healing ulcer
caused by the injuries in the accident. We cannot but
observe that the statement of PW-2 regarding the health
condition of her husband runs contrary to the expert opinion
given by the Doctor who was examined by the claimants
themselves as PW-1.
9. The High Court has elaborately considered the
arguments raised on behalf of the claimants regarding the
cause of acute myocardial infarction. The contention that
such a condition could occur due to a long bed rest, as
deposed by the Doctor PW-1 also was negatived on the
ground that there is no clear evidence as to such a bed rest
having been advised for the patient. Admittedly, the
inpatient treatment was only between 29.04.2006 and
03.05.2006 and after that the victim was stated to have
undergone outpatient treatment till 12.08.2006. Though, it
has been contended that on discharge he was advised bed
rest, there is no specific period of bed rest spoken of by the
witness or substantiated by documentary evidence.
Page 8 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
Admittedly, there was a non-healing ulcer on the right foot
which did not respond to the treatment at the local hospital
which prompted the reference to a higher medical centre. It
was at the higher medical centre that the death occurred
after a successful skin grafting procedure. The death could
very well have been the after effect of the surgery, given the
medical parameters of the patient. It cannot have any direct
nexus to the accident which was not conclusively
established; the expert medical opinion being otherwise.
10. The injuries suffered in the accident, as deposed by
PW-1, the Doctor and found by the Tribunal were not very
serious. The non-healing ulcer could have been for various
causes, especially when the victim was known to be a
diabetic, which necessitated the skin grafting procedure.
The procedure also was carried out successfully but in the
aftermath of the surgery, the patient succumbed to death.
11. Merely by reason of the proximity of the accident and
the death or the possibility of acute myocardial infarction
occurring for reason of a long bed rest, it cannot be
Page 9 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
assumed, without clear evidence to substantiate the death
having been caused as a result of the injuries sustained in
the accident that the death occurred by reason of the
accident. There cannot be found even a preponderance of
probability, going by the Doctor’s evidence. We cannot
interfere with the well-considered judgment of the High
Court, which though rejected the claim for compensation for
death, considered the claim for injuries sustained. We are
unable to interfere with the findings of the High Court.
12. The appeal stands dismissed.
13. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
...……….………………………..J.
(N.V. ANJARIA)
New Delhi;
September 04, 2025.
