4. A claim pe(cid:12)(cid:12)on was filed by his widow and children, asser(cid:12)ng that the death was directly a(cid:26)ributable to the injuries sustained in the said accident, as his condi(cid:12)on deteriorated soon a(cid:29)er discharge.

5. The Tribunal, a(cid:29)er evalua(cid:12)ng the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent–driver Rajinder Kumar. On the issue of causa(cid:12)on of death, the Tribunal considered the objec(cid:12)on raised by the Insurance Company that the deceased was discharged in a sa(cid:12)sfactory condi(cid:12)on on 30.07.1998, and that no postmortem examina(cid:12)on had been conducted to establish the cause of death. The Tribunal rejected this conten(cid:12)on with the following reasoning:

“Although the deceased was discharged sa(cid:12)sfactorily, he died a(cid:29)er five days of discharge. PW-3 has stated that he died due to the injuries received in the accident. Hence, in these circumstances, the cause of death will be presumed to be the injuries sustained in the accident.”

The Tribunal relied upon Khairullah v. Anita, 1994 ACJ 1017, and Jivathen v. The Manager, The Haraspur Co-opera(cid:31)ve Supply Society Ltd., 1974 ACJ 438, to hold that the absence of postmortem examina(cid:12)on does not, by itself, negate the causal link between the injuries and the subsequent death.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company reiterated that since the deceased was discharged from the hospital on 30.07.1998 and expired on 05.08.1998, the gap of about 7 days weakened the nexus between the accident and the death. It was further submi(cid:26)ed that in absence of postmortem report, it could not be conclusively held that the death was due to accidental injuries.

7. This Court has considered the submissions and carefully examined the material available on record.

8. The central ques(cid:12)on that arises is whether, in the absence of a postmortem report and despite the lapse of a few days between the accident and the death, it can be reasonably inferred that the death was the consequence of injuries sustained in the accident.

9. It is a se(cid:26)led principle of law that while determining compensa(cid:12)on under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a liberal approach is to be adopted and technicali(cid:12)es should not defeat the object of beneficial legisla(cid:12)on. The doctrine of proximate cause, as opposed to remote cause, guides such determina(cid:12)ons.

10. In Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 113 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the act resul(cid:12)ng in death is integrally connected with the use of the motor vehicle, the death must be deemed to have arisen out of the use of the vehicle. Similarly, in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9, it was reiterated that strict proof of causa(cid:12)on like in criminal law is not required and that a reasonable and direct nexus between the accident and the death suffices.

11. Applying these principles, it is evident from the record that the deceased had sustained serious injuries in the accident of 26.07.1998. He remained under treatment for five days and was discharged. He expired within 7 days of discharge. There is unrebu(cid:26)ed oral tes(cid:12)mony (PW-3) that his health had deteriorated as a consequence of those injuries.

12. In such circumstances, absence of a postmortem report is not fatal. As held in Khairullah v. Anita (supra), failure to conduct postmortem cannot be construed adversely against the claimants, par(cid:12)cularly when there exists uncontroverted medical and circumstan(cid:12)al evidence poin(cid:12)ng to the accident as the proximate cause of death.

13. Furthermore, the standard of proof in claim proceedings is one of preponderance of probabili(cid:12)es, and not beyond reasonable doubt.

14. Therefore, considering the short dura(cid:12)on between the accident and the death, and the me