Judgment JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. This is claimants' appeal challenging the impugned award dated 12.11.1998, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby, the claim petition has been dismissed. It is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim petition, by holding that the death is not the direct result of the injury suffered by the deceased in the accident. The finding recorded runs contrary to the postmortem report on record. In the postmortem report Ex.P2, cause of death was kept reserved. The Certificate Ex.P.3 is produced as under: “Cause of death is due to cardiorespiratory failure in a case of Supracondylar Fracture left side while Intubation of Anesthesia.” The accident took place on 26.04.1995 whereas, the victim died on 04.05.1995. The learned counsel argued that the learned Tribunal has wrongly decided issue no.3 against the appellants/claimants and failed to draw the inference regarding the cause of death occurred just within few days of the accident. The learned Tribunal has failed to give proper opportunity to the appellants to adduce the proper evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that it is a simple fracture and there is no nexus between the occurrence of the death and the injury. The Court below has rightly concluded that the death is not relatable to the accident Ex.P.3. The learned counsel for the respondent relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court titled as Dara Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 330 held as under: “It is not the case, where the injured was taken to house after being discharges from the Hospital or that no proper treatment was given to him. Consequently, the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained.” In the instant case, the only relevant evidence on this point produced by the petitioners is a copy of postmortem report Ex.P.2 and a certificate described as cause of death issued by the Medical Officer, High Court Dispensary, Mumbai as Ex.P.3. The claimants have not led any other evidence in this regard to connect the death with the accident. As per the statement of PW2 Baldev Singh, eyewitness the deceased, Pushpal Singh had received only one injury on his right hand. He suffered only a supracondy lar fracture of left side. The claimants have not led any other evidence in this regard to connect the death with the accident. As per the statement of PW2 Baldev Singh, eyewitness the deceased, Pushpal Singh had received only one injury on his right hand. He suffered only a supracondy lar fracture of left side. The counsel for the Insurance Company has rightly submitted that even if the said report is considered in evidence without the examination of the doctor concerned, still it would not help the claimants to show that the accident in question was the direct cause of death of Pushpal Singh. Ex.P2 certificate shows that deceased Pushpal Singh had suffered supradondy lar fracture on the left side but as per the postmortem report, he suffered cardiorespiratory failure. There is no direct or indirect nexus between the death and the Injury. In the absence of any specific evidence on record, this Court feels that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned award is made out. Dismissed.