Appeal Dismissed as Court Holds Death Not Shown to Be Direct Consequence of Accident

A bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard an appeal by the claimants challenging the Kerala High Court's reversal of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The claimants — the wife, minor child and mother of an Excise Guard who died months after a motorcycle collision — sought compensation on the ground that the death arose from injuries sustained in the accident.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's finding that the claimants had not established a direct causal link between the 29 April 2006 accident and the death on 18 September 2006. The tribunal had earlier found, on the basis of medical evidence, that the death was a "direct consequence of the accident" and recorded the cause of death in a surgeon's certificate as "pulmonary embolism/acute myocardial infarction." The Supreme Court noted conflicting medical evidence, pre-existing health indicators and the absence of a post-mortem. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background The deceased had collided with another motorcycle on 29 April 2006, suffered fractures and a wound to the right foot, and was treated as an inpatient from 29 April to 3 May 2006, thereafter as an outpatient until 12 August 2006. A non-healing ulcer on the right foot led to referral to a higher centre where skin grafting was performed on 21 September 2006; the patient developed sudden breathlessness and died the same day. The claimants relied on the treating plastic surgeon's certificate, Exhibit A-1, recording the cause of death as "pulmonary embolism/acute myocardial infarction," and the Tribunal accepted that the non-healing ulcer and subsequent surgery were traceable to the accident.

On cross-examination, however, the plastic surgeon (PW-1) acknowledged that pre-operative tests showed high cholesterol and signs of cardiac strain, and that the patient had a history of mild hypertension and diabetes (Exhibit A-9). PW-1 also conceded that no post-mortem had been performed because the family objected, and that a post-mortem "could have ascertained" the cause of death. The High Court analysed the medical record, the surgeon's evidence and the treatment timeline, and concluded that the death could plausibly be an after-effect of the surgery or of underlying cardiac disease rather than a direct result of the earlier accident. The Supreme Court found no error in that appreciation and held that, in the absence of clear evidence connecting the injuries to death and without a preponderance of probability, the claim for compensation for death could not stand. The Court dismissed the appeal; the High Court's rejection of the death claim and its consideration of injury claims were left intact. No interim directions were necessary; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025 (2025 INSC 1075) Case Title: Haseena & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shaji P. Chaly (Senior Counsel) For the Respondent(s): Names not indicated in the judgment