JUDGMENT : Raghubir Dash, J.?This appeal is against the award dated 20th may 2004 passed by the learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 615 of 1996 directing the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 2) to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000 as against the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000. The injured was the original claimant. During pendency of his claim-application he died. Thereafter, the present appellants were substituted. Originally, the injured had claimed Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for the injuries he had sustained on account of a vehicular accident that had occurred on 25th May, 1996 on Cuttack Pradeep Road in which he had sustained fracture of right femur and right side clavicle, besides other multiple injuries all over his body. Subsequently, on 29th June, 1998 the injured-claimant died. His widow and children after being substituted submitted another application claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 with the contention that since the injured at the time of accident was suffering from diabetes the injuries he received in the accident aggravated his diabetes status which led to different complications resulting in accelerated death. 2. Respondent No. 1, the Owner of the offending vehicle, who is arrayed as Opposite Party No. 1 in the Misc. Case filed written statement admitting his ownership over the offending vehicle and claiming that as on the date of the accident the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy obtained from National Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 2). The Insurance Company arrayed as opposite party No. 2 in the Misc. Case also filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition in its entirety. 3. Appellant-claimants adduced evidence both oral and documentary. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent opposite parties. Here it is worth-mentioning that the Insurance Company was granted leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the claim on all such grounds as are available to the insured. 4. Learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence came to conclude that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (a scooter bearing Registration No. (AC-4895) the original claimant-Upendra Muduli sustained injuries but the nexus between the injuries caused in the accident and the subsequent death of the injured could not be established. 4. Learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence came to conclude that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (a scooter bearing Registration No. (AC-4895) the original claimant-Upendra Muduli sustained injuries but the nexus between the injuries caused in the accident and the subsequent death of the injured could not be established. Finding that the insurance policy in question was valid as on the date of the accident learned Tribunal held the insurer liable to indemnify the insured by making payment of the amount of compensation to the claimant. Ultimately, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 as just compensation with interest (c) 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. 5. Seeking for enhancement of the amount of compensation the appellants have preferred this appeal contending that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record as well as the facts and circumstances that led to the death of the deceased about two years after the accident, establishing close nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased. 6. On behalf of the appellants it is vehemently argued that death of the deceased was a sequence of the injuries that the deceased had sustained in the vehicular accident. It is submitted that by the time of the accident the deceased was suffering from Diabetes and for the injury the deceased had sustained on his left leg, the contracted infection and gradually it aggravated leading to other complications such as nephropathy, C.R.F. with diabetic foot and toxaemia for which he was admitted in S.C.B. Medical College Hospital on 10th June, 1998 where he died on 29th June, 1998. 7. Learned Tribunal has observed that while the Injury Report (Ext. 4) and Outdoor Ticket (Ext. 1) do no reflect that the deceased had sustained any injury on his left leg and that there is also no such pleading in the original claim application, the claimants try to make out a case that the injury caused to the left leg in the accident led to gangrene of the left leg as the injured's diabetic conditions aggravated, thus, trying to connect the injury caused by the accident to the death that occurred about two years after the accident, which is not supported by any reliable evidence. 8. 8. Under these circumstances it is to be decided as to whether the death of the original claimant on account of the disease for which he was admitted in S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 10th June, 1998 (and subsequent complications arising after such admission) can be directly, or even remotely, attributed to the injuries he had sustained in the accident. In the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased subsequent to his death it is stated that the deceased was constantly under treatment from the date of the accident till his death on account of which an amount of Rs. 50,000 was spent. It is also stated that the deceased was treated for a long period both as an indoor patient and an outdoor patient and in the long run he succumbed to his injuries. Widow of the deceased examined as P.W.4 has stated that for about four years preceding his death her husband had been suffering from diabetes for which he was under treatment of one Dr. Senapati. But the said doctor is not examined as a witness to say that at the time of the accident that deceased had been suffering from diabetes. No medical paper has been exhibited to support this claim but, when asked to, she has explained that all the papers were destroyed in the cyclone. Though it is claimed that the deceased was an indoor as well as outdoor patient getting frequent treatment in between that date of accident and the date of his death, there is no supporting material to that effect. Admittedly, the deceased was admitted in hospital for treatment of the vehicular injuries he had sustained. But, after his discharge from hospital and till he was re-admitted in the hospital on 10th June, 1998 the deceased is not shown to have received any treatment of the injuries he had sustained in the accident or, even on account of his diabetic status, or on account of any of the vehicular injuries getting infection for any reason whatsoever. About two years after the accident he was admitted is S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital for diabetes, nephropathy, C.R.A. with diabetic of left foot and toxaemia. About two years after the accident he was admitted is S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital for diabetes, nephropathy, C.R.A. with diabetic of left foot and toxaemia. P.W.3, the Doctor, was a Lecturer in the Endocrinology Department of the said hospital as on the date the deceased was admitted in that Department, he says that as per record the deceased had diabetes for last five years. It appears, on a perusal of the bedhead ticket (Ext. 6) this witness has stated so. Because, in the bed-head ticket there is an entry made on 17th June, 1998 by another Lecturer, Skin and V.D., to the effect that the patient was a known diabetic since five years. So, P.W.3 has no locus standi to say that the deceased had diabetes for about five years proceeding his death. The Doctor examined as P.W. 3 does not even claim to have ever attended to the deceased during his admission in the Hospital. He does not claim to have made any entry in the bed head ticket. It appears simply on perusal of the bed-head ticket he has adduced evidence before the Tribunal. 9. Thus, there is absence of materials for arriving at a conclusion that the deceased had been suffering from diabetes since some time prior to the accident and the injuries caused to him on account of the vehicular accident aggravated his health condition as because he was a diabetic patient. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants cite some decisions to support his contention that on the materials available on record the nexus between the accident and the death can be said to have been established. In Govind Singh and Others v. A.S. Koilasam and Another, II (2005) ACC 426 (DB) : 1975 A.C.J. 215 (Mad.), the victim of a vehicular accident sustained a minor injury on her left foot but she developed tetanus while receiving treatment at the Government Hospital for the said injury and after eighteen days of the accident she died. Thus, there was no difficulty in reaching at a conclusion that the tetanus infection which brought about the death was directly attributable to the injury sustained by the victim in the accident and, therefore, the cause of death could not be said to be unconnected with the injury sustained in the accident. In Vidhyawati Vs. Thus, there was no difficulty in reaching at a conclusion that the tetanus infection which brought about the death was directly attributable to the injury sustained by the victim in the accident and, therefore, the cause of death could not be said to be unconnected with the injury sustained in the accident. In Vidhyawati Vs. A. Guruswamy the victim of the vehicular accident had sustained bleeding injuries including fracture of the right leg and for that he underwent treatment as an indoor patient for one month. As his condition did not improve he was referred to another Hospital for better treatment. While under treatment for about ten days he was discharged on request. Thereafter, he got himself admitted to another Hospital at three different phases and on all occasions the treatment was in respect of the injury which was not cured. Ultimately, he died about five months after the accident. Since the victim was a diabetic patient the injury caused to him had created other complications for which his health became weak and he could not resist the attack of pneumonia. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the death occurred not due to the accident but due to the fact that the victim was subsequently attacked with pneumonia. But Their Lordships observed that if it appears that the death was the direct or consequential effect of the accident, in such a case, the claimant should be entitled to get compensation for the loss of life even if the deceased ultimately died of a different disease. In this case the nexus has been clearly established by showing that the accident injury did not get cured for which the victim was under medical treatment throughout and, ultimately, the injury which could not be cured because of his diabetic condition took his life. In Klaus Mittelbachert Vs. East India Hotels Ltd. it is observed that if an injury hastens or accelerates the death, directly and not remotely, then in law the injury is one causing or resulting in death. This fact is not found to have been established by the appellants even by way of preponderance of probabilities. In Ranchhodbhai Somabhai and Another Vs. Babubhai Bhailalbhai and Others it is observed that it is not the requirement of law that meticulous particulars regarding after-effects of the accident injury should be mentioned in the claim application. This fact is not found to have been established by the appellants even by way of preponderance of probabilities. In Ranchhodbhai Somabhai and Another Vs. Babubhai Bhailalbhai and Others it is observed that it is not the requirement of law that meticulous particulars regarding after-effects of the accident injury should be mentioned in the claim application. It is further observed that it might not be possible in all cases to lead the evidence of experts. However, in that case there was direct and proximate connection between the accident injury and the untimely death of the deceased. Though the death occurred at a point of time which cannot be said to be proximate to the date of accident and there was no medical evidence regarding the cause of death, there was evidence showing that the death was linked with the accident injury. In that case, the victim had suffered, inter alia, rupture of urethra. Even at the time of discharge, he was advised to report for dilation once every fortnight as he was experiencing difficulty in passing urine owing to the accident injury. The difficulty continued to persist compelling him to get hospitalized on several occasions after has initial discharge from the hospital. About 17 months after the accident, the victim ultimately died. 11. As already stated in the case in hand, there is no evidence direct or circumstantial connecting the accident injury to the cause of death which occurred about two years after the accident. There is no evidence that the deceased did not get fully cured after he was discharged from the hospital getting treatment for the accident injuries. There is no material showing that during the intervening period of about two years he had received medical treatment for any disease whatsoever or for any complications arising out of any of the accident injuries which included fracture of right femur and right side clavicle. Though the deceased had sustained fracture of right femur and right clavicle those injuries did not get aggravated. There is no statement on record as to when the deceased's left foot got affected which led to gangrene. So, learned Tribunal has rightly negatived the claimants' assertion that due to accident injuries deceased's diabetic condition got aggravated. The deceased was a tractor driver. There is no statement on record as to when the deceased's left foot got affected which led to gangrene. So, learned Tribunal has rightly negatived the claimants' assertion that due to accident injuries deceased's diabetic condition got aggravated. The deceased was a tractor driver. It is not stated by any of the witnesses examined by the claimants that the deceased, because of his illness, had remained absent from duties, either intermittingly or continuously, during the intervening period of two years. Under such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that there is no evidence to conclude that the accident injury was the cause of his death or that the accident injury accelerated the death of the deceased. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merits and, therefore, it is dismissed on contest but without cost. Final Result : Dismissed