The appeal focused on causation and liability in personal injury under Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the connection between the accident and resultant complications.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

These two appeals are by the owners of the ambulance calling in question the impugned judgment and award dated 07.04.2021 in MVC No.555/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on liability.

2. The date of accident and involvement of the vehicle are not in dispute; the only issue as per the appellants herein is that there is no possibility of cause for death of wife of the claimant by name Smt. Archana on the count that the accident occurred on 18.10.2014 and she breathed her last on 27.10.2017. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was due to respiratory failure consequent to complications of Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome with history of RTA.

3. Heard Sri Vishwanath R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.661/2022 and Sri B. S. Venkatanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.560/2022 and Sri Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in both appeals.

4. Sri Vishwanath R. Hegde and B. S. Venkatanarayana jointly submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the ambulance bearing registration No.KA-09 GA-9410. It is only due to the negligent driving of the driver of the 108 Ambulance. There are no severe injuries sustained by the deceased, who was ambulated in ambulance belonging to the appellant. The lady was suffering from serious illness. There is no proximate cause to link the injury as well as death in order to hold that the death caused due to the accident. The postmortem report (Ex.P3) merely says that neither injuries nor fractures on the body of deceased and the cause of death was due to respiratory failure, consequent to complications of Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome with history of RTA.

5. To substantiate their claim, the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals submitted a brief synopsis stating about the diagnosis and what is Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome (P.R.E.S). As per the synopsis supplied by the appellant, Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome (P.R.E.S) is a clinico–radiological syndrome characterized by headache, seizures, altered mental status and visual loss. Common triggering factors of P.R.E.S. Include blood pressure fluctuations, renal failure etc., and submits that the cause of death is due to respiratory failure, which has nothing to do with the accident. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter and the proceeded to award compensation holding that the death is due to accident. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal.

6. To buttress their arguments, both the counsels in both the appeals relied on the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Chhinder Pal Kaur and others Vs. Sayyad Jalali and Another ¹ to contend that, in the said case referred, “the cause of death is due to cardiorespiratory failure in a case of Supracondylar Fracture left side while Intubation of Anesthesia”. In the said case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was of the opinion that, there is no connection between the death and the accident as per Ex.P2 – postmortem report and the certificate described as cause of death issued by the Medical Officer, High Court Dispensary, Mumbai as per Ex.P3. The injury caused by the supercondylar fracture on left side and as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure. In that view of the matter, the Hon'ble High Court of Haryana and Punjab confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal, which is claimed in the claim petition.

7. On issuance of notice