The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the appeal filed by the family of a deceased Excise Guard, who had sought compensation claiming his death was directly linked to a motor accident. The bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision, which had earlier rejected the family’s plea.
Background
The case dates back to April 29, 2006, when the victim’s motorcycle collided with another two-wheeler. He suffered multiple fractures in his right foot and finger, besides a wound at the fracture site. Initially treated in a local hospital, he later developed a non-healing ulcer. On September 18, 2006, after a skin graft surgery at a higher medical centre, he died due to what doctors recorded as pulmonary embolism and acute myocardial infarction.
Read also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Directs Revenue Officer to Decide Pending Compensation Dispute in Three Months
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had initially accepted the family’s argument, ruling that the death was caused by complications arising from the accident. But the High Court disagreed, stating that medical evidence did not clearly establish such a direct connection.
Court’s Observations
The apex court carefully examined the testimonies, especially that of the plastic surgeon who conducted the surgery. The doctor admitted that while prolonged bed rest can sometimes trigger conditions like pulmonary embolism, the victim’s injuries were “not very serious in nature.” He also acknowledged that the deceased had a history of diabetes, mild hypertension, and high cholesterol—factors that increase the risk of a heart attack.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Directs Lower Court to Decide Injunction Plea Within Four Weeks in Property Dispute
Crucially, no post-mortem was conducted, leaving a gap in evidence. The bench remarked, “Merely by reason of the proximity of the accident and the death… it cannot be assumed without clear evidence that the death occurred by reason of the accident.”
Decision
Upholding the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court ruled that the claimants had failed to establish even a “preponderance of probability” linking the accident injuries to the eventual death. The judges clarified that while compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident was valid, the claim for death-related compensation could not stand.
With that, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the widow, child, and mother of the deceased, bringing an end to their nearly two-decade-long legal battle.
Case Title: Haseena & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
Date of Judgment: September 4, 2025
