In a recent case, the Supreme Court of India gave the judgment that in order to claim compensation in case of an accident, the death must be caused as a direct consequence of the accident. Mere proximity of the accident and the death is not enough. Know more about this case below:
1. Case Name: Haseena & Ors. Vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1075
Bench: Justice K Vinod Chandra and Justice N.V. Anjaria (Authored By: J. K Vinod Chandra)
Date of Judgment: 04/09/2025
FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The wife, minor child, and the mother of an excise guard claimed compensation as the guard had allegedly died due to an accident on 29.04.2006.
2. The patient (guard) died due to pulmonary embolism/acute myocardial infarction on 18.09.2006 i.e. 5 months after the date of the accident.
3. Tribunal found that the death was a direct consequence of the accident. This decision was overturned by the High Court.
FINDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT:
A. Merely by reason of the proximity of the accident and the death or the possibility of acute myocardial infarction occurring due to a long bed rest, it cannot be assumed that the death was caused as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident.
B. The SC also found that there is lack of any clear evidence to substantiate the above claim.
C. The claim for compensation of the injuries was sustained, but the claim for compensation for death was rejected.
Supreme Court Judgment in Haseena Case: Conclusion
Hence, this Supreme Court Judgment reiterated the principle that in order to grant the compensation, there must be a close connection between the death and the accident. The principle of compensation cannot work on mere proximity or possibility.
Read More Latest Supreme Court Judgments 2025 here: https://legalmaamla.com/
