JUDGMENT : NKAR MAGADUM, J. The captioned appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition by the judgment and award dated 13.07.2015 passed in MVC.No.751/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holenarasipur. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The appellants filed claim petition by contending that on 09.02.2011 at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased Puttamma was proceeding on the left side of the road towards her house at Bettadasathenahalli and when she reached the house of one Lokesh, the driver of the offending lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-13-A-6293 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Puttamma, as a result of which, the said puttamma suffered severe injuries and was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Holenarasipur. The Doctor at Government Hospital after having given first aid treatment, advised the appellants/claimants to shift her to S.C.Hospital, Hassan. The appellants/claimants have specifically contended that she was shifted to S.C.Hospital, Hassan and there she underwent treatment as an inpatient till 21.01.2011. Thereafter, she continued treatment as an outpatient till 04.03.2011. The appellants/claimants further contended in the claim petition that on 04.05.2011, at about 2.00 p.m., she complained pain and immediately she was taken to Government Hospital, Holenarasipur and thereafter, she was again shifted to S.C.Hospital, Hassan. The appellants have specifically pleaded in the claim petition that at about 2.30 p.m. at S.C.Hospital, Hassan, the said Puttamma died. After conducting postmortem, the body was handed over and thereafter, the appellants have performed the funeral of the deceased. The appellants/claimants have specifically pleaded in the claim petition that the said Puttamma died on account of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident dated 09.02.2011 and hence, claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. On receipt of notice, the respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The respondent No.1/owner specifically contended that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No.2-Insurance Company and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The respondent No.1 also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. The respondent No.1/owner specifically contended that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No.2-Insurance Company and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The respondent No.1 also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was specifically contended that, in the event, the Tribunal comes to conclusion that claimants are entitled for compensation, the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the respondent No.1-owner and pay compensation, if any. The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company filed written statement and specifically contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company also stoutly denied the entire averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal based on the rival contentions, formulated the following issues: (1) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Puttamma sustained injuries and died in an accident, occurred on 09.02.2011 at about 6.05 p.m, near the house of Lokesh, at Bettadasathenahalli, due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.KA-13-A-6293, by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed in the petition? If so, at what amount and from whom? (3) What Order or Award? The appellants/claimants in support of their contention, examined appellant No.2 as PW.1 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-16. The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company examined its officer as RW.1 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.R-1 to R-3. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 in the negative by holding that the appellants/claimants have failed to establish the nexus between the injuries caused in the road traffic accident dated 09.02.2011 and the death caused subsequently. The Tribunal having perused Ex.P-9, which is the postmortem report wherein it is opined that the cause of death is due to myocardial infraction, has come to the conclusion that there is no nexus between the injuries and the death and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal was of the view that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the documentary evidence placed on record by the appellants themselves is contrary to the ocular evidence and further, it probabalizes the defence of the respondent No.2. The Tribunal was of the view that the oral evidence of RW.1 corroborates with the medical and police records and since the clinching rebuttal evidence lead in by the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company clearly indicates that the death is due to myocardial infraction and not due to the accidental injuries, the Tribunal was of the view that the appellants/claimants are not entitled for any compensation in the present case on hand. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the death of Puttamma is on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending lorry is not in dispute and as such, he would submit to this court that the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the claim petition. He would also submit to this Court that the appellant No.2 had filed an application requesting the Tribunal to permit the appellants to examine witnesses and had also sought for witness summons to the hospital authorities to produce the documents relating to the subject matter of the case and in this background, he would submit to this Court that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application and consequently, the claim petition. On these set of grounds, learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the judgment and award of the Tribunal suffers from serious infirmities and the dismissal of the claim petition resulted in miscarriage of justice and hence, he would submit to this Court that the same needs interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that though the accident is dated 09.02.2011, however, the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased Puttamma have not ultimately resulted in death and in absence of nexus between the injuries sustained and the consequent death, he would submit to this Court that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has dismissed the claim petition. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are in accordance with law and based on the available materials and hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal would not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents at length. 6. Having meticulously examined the pleadings in the claim petition and having perused the oral and documentary evidence relied by the appellants/claimants, the only point that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is, “Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition by holding that the claimants have failed to establish death of Puttamma on account of physical injuries sustained by her in a motor accident dated 09.02.2011?” 7. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, we are of the view that the deceased Puttamma has not suffered fatal injuries and on perusal of Ex.P-11 which is the wound certificate, there is lot of vagueness and ambiguity in referring to the injuries in claim petition. The claimants have generalized the nature of injuries without specifically stating as to the nature of injuries suffered by Puttamma on 09.02.2011 in the claim petition. It is the specific case of the claimants that Puttamma was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Holenarasipur on 09.02.2011 and as per the advise of the Doctor, the appellants/claimants have later shifted the said Puttamma to S.C.Hospital, Hassan where she took treatment till 21.01.2011. However, on perusal of Ex.P-14 which is the discharge summary, the same indicates that she was admitted to Government Hospital, Holenarasipur on 21.02.2011 at about 6.20 p.m. and she was discharged on 04.03.2011 at about 9.10 a.m. This material contradiction would virtually go to the root of the case and would give raise to doubt in regard to very occurrence of the accident. On perusal of the wound certificate, only injury No.3 is stated to be grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature. Injury No.3 refers to left clavicle. Hence, if the wound certificate as per Ex.P-11 is taken into consideration, we are of the view that the contention of the claimants that on account of injuries to left clavicle, the said Puttamma succumbed to injuries on 04.05.2011cannot be accepted. Injury No.3 refers to left clavicle. Hence, if the wound certificate as per Ex.P-11 is taken into consideration, we are of the view that the contention of the claimants that on account of injuries to left clavicle, the said Puttamma succumbed to injuries on 04.05.2011cannot be accepted. There is absolutely no medical evidence available on record to establish that Puttamma had health complications on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident dated 09.02.2011 and the same caused death of Puttamma. The postmortem report as per Ex.P-9 clearly indicates that the Doctor who has performed postmortem, has opined that the cause of death is on account of myocardial infraction. If this clinching evidence is taken into consideration, the findings recorded by the Tribunal is based on sound judicial principles of law and is also in accordance with the materials on record. The claimants have failed to prove that death of Puttamma had ensued or occurred as a consequence or result of physical injuries sustained by her in motor accident. 8. On meticulous examination of oral and documentary evidence, we are of the view that claimants have failed to prove that death of Puttamma had ensued or occurred as a consequence or result of physical injuries sustained by her in a motor accident. As per the case of the claimants, the accident occurred on 09.02.2011 and in the said accident, it is the specific contention of the claimants that she suffered injuries to the left clavicle whereas, the death has occurred on 04.05.2011, there is a gap of almost 3 months. In the intervening period, the health status of said Puttamma is neither narrated in the claim petition nor the same is brought on record during trial. The Tribunal has relied on Ex.P-9 which is the postmortem report and has proceeded to dismiss the claim petition. The postmortem report clearly indicates that death is on account of myocardial infraction. The question in regard to whether evidence on record was good enough to come to conclusion that death has occurred on account of physical injuries sustained in a road traffic accident has been dealt by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has adverted to the medical evidence on record more particularly, Ex.P-9 which is the postmortem report and has come to conclusion that death of Puttamma is not on account of physical injuries. The Tribunal has adverted to the medical evidence on record more particularly, Ex.P-9 which is the postmortem report and has come to conclusion that death of Puttamma is not on account of physical injuries. The Tribunal has taken into consideration all these crucial aspects of the case which have bearing on the question as to whether death was on account of physical injuries. The Tribunal has adverted to correct legal presumption by relying on the postmortem report. The grievance of the claimants before this Court that application was filed to secure the officials of the Hospital and the said application has been hurriedly rejected would be of no consequence. The postmortem report would clinch the issue and hence, any amount of evidence would be of no consequence in the present case on hand. We have carefully adverted to all this significant details elaborated by the Tribunal in its judgment. We do not find any strong reason which would displace the findings recorded by the Tribunal and conclusion arrived at. The appellants have not been able to displace the careful analysis of evidence by the Tribunal and also the findings which have been arrived at. On careful analysis of the judgment and award of the Tribunal and also material on record, we find no reason to take a view at variance with that of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that the appellants/claimants have failed to establish the nexus between the injuries caused in the road traffic accident dated 09.02.2011 and the consequent death. 9. On reassessing the entire evidence on record, the grounds urged by the appellants/claimants are not at all tenable. We are of the view that the medical records clearly indicate and demonstrate that Puttamma died on account of myocardial infraction and not on account of injuries sustained in the road traffic accident on 09.02.2011. In that view of the matter, in absence of clinching evidence, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 10. In the light of the discussions made above, the point formulated by this Court is answered in the affirmative and accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.