Dismissal of claim petition in toto is impermissible where deceased survived for a period post-accident.

On March 26, 2008, Raijibhai Fulabhai Parmar was traveling in a luxury bus (GJ-06-X-9489) which, due to the driver's rash and negligent driving, struck a culvert and overturned

Raijibhai sustained grievous injuries and eventually passed away on August 3, 2010

The appellant (claimant) filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1476 of 2010. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara, dismissed the petition on June 30, 2022, primarily on the grounds that there was no established nexus between the injuries sustained in 2008 and the death in 2010

The appellant challenged this dismissal, arguing that even if a nexus to death was not proven, compensation was due for the 2.5-year period the deceased survived post-accident

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition in toto solely due to the lack of nexus between the accident injuries and the ultimate cause of death

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for the period of 2.5 years during which the deceased survived and underwent medical treatment after the accident

The court applied the principles governing the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the determination of compensation in accident claims.

The core legal principle dictates that even if a fatal claim fails due to a lack of evidence linking the accident to the eventual death (nexus), the Tribunal is still obligated to evaluate and award compensation for pain, suffering, medical expenses, and loss of amenities incurred by the deceased during the period they survived post-accident

The High Court observed that while the deceased survived for approximately 2.5 years following the vehicular accident, the Tribunal dismissed the entire claim petition based on the disconnect between the injuries and the final cause of death

The Court reasoned that such an wholesale dismissal was improper. It held that the Tribunal "ought not to have dismissed the claim petition in toto" and should have instead shifted the evaluation to appropriate heads of compensation—such as medical expenses and suffering—relevant to the survival period of the deceased

Since the Tribunal failed to consider these alternative heads of compensation, the judgment was found to be infirm and required a fresh adjudication

The Court remanded the matter back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara, with a direction to decide the claim petition afresh under appropriate heads within six months from the date of the judgment. The parties were directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments, and the Record & Proceedings (R&P) were ordered to be returned to the Tribunal immediately