Uncertain causal nexus between accident injuries and death warrants remand for additional evidence.

On 17 March 2006, Ningaraju was injured when the bus insured by the appellant collided with the auto-rickshaw in which he was travelling.

He filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for his injuries.

He died on 17 May 2009 while the claim was pending, and his wife and children were brought on record.

The Tribunal awarded ₹4,15,750 with interest, treating his death as connected to the accident.

The insurer appealed only the finding that the death resulted from the accidental injuries; it did not dispute the accident or the injuries.

Whether the Tribunal’s finding that Ningaraju’s death was due to the accidental injuries, making the insurer liable on a death-claim basis, required interference

Whether the parties should be permitted to adduce additional evidence on the connection between the accident and Ningaraju’s death

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal under Section 173(1).

The Court referred to the Full Bench decision in Kannamma v. Deputy General Manager, ILR 1990 KAR 4300, which it noted addresses the damages recoverable where an injured claimant dies during the claim proceedings for reasons other than the accidental injuries; in such a case, damages are confined to specified limited heads.

The Court’s consideration turned on whether the evidence established a nexus between the accident injuries and the subsequent death.

The evidence established the accident and Ningaraju’s injuries, and the medical bills supported expenditure on treatment.

But the hospital death certificate and PW2’s testimony identified cerebral hypoxia as the cause of death without explaining any connection to the head injury sustained more than three years earlier.

PW2 also stated that Ningaraju had a history of epilepsy, and no post-mortem examination had been conducted.

The Court nevertheless considered PW1’s evidence that Ningaraju continued outpatient treatment after discharge and noted that the insurer had not cross-examined PW2 on the relevant issue.

Given these competing evidentiary considerations, it held that both parties should have the opportunity to establish whether the death was causally connected to the accident.

It directed that ₹25,000 from the amount in deposit be released to the claimants, subject to the final outcome, and directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 3 November 2026.