The development of an autoimmune disorder (such as Guillain Barre Syndrome) as a complication of post-operative infections following an accident does not break the legal nexus between the initial injuries and the eventual death.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against judgment and decree dated 21.06.2025 made in M.C.O.P.No.3966 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr.S. Arun Kumar

For Respondents : Mr.Amar D. Pandiya for R1 to R3

R4 – Court notice returned as left

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.

2. The parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

On 07.04.2017, at about 19.30 hours, when the deceased was going as a pedestrian on the Peravallur Jawahar Nagar main Road, a Low Good Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 18 F 2909, came in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased, due to which he fell down and sustained multiple injuries and despite treatment, he died on 22.09.2017. A criminal case was also registered against the driver of the vehicle in Crime No.117 of 2017. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 54 years and was earning Rs.750/- per day.

4.The second respondent Insurance Company denied the income of the deceased and stated that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident and hence, they are not liable to pay the compensation.

5. On the side of the claimants, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P25 were marked and on the side of the second respondent Insurance Company, RW1 was examined and no exhibits were marked.

6. The Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence of PW3 and Ex.P5- Charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, came to the conclusion that negligence is on the part of the driver of the first respondent,. The tribunal also recorded the fact that there is no contra evidence produced by the Insurance Company to show that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent’s driver.

7. It is the main contention of the appellant Insurance Company that there is no nexus between the injuries and cause of death, as according to learned counsel, the deceased sustained multiple injuries on 07.04.2017 and he died only on 22.09.2017. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was admitted in the hospital from 08.04.2017 to 12.04.2017 and he had undergone surgery and plate was implanted and he was once again admitted from 18.05.2017 to 02.06.2017 and the discharge summary dated 22.06.2017 clearly indicates that there is infection due to the own action of the deceased and he has not followed the medical advice properly and the claimants have also not produced the proof for cause of death.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the death was due to Guillain Baree Syndrome and during cross examination PW2 doctor has opined that only due to the infection, Guillain Baree Syndrome had occurred and that was the cause for the death.

9. We have perused the entire materials placed on record.

10. The manner of accident and negligence aspect is not in dispute and the injuries sustained by the deceased is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased underwent major surgeries and plates were implanted and he was treated as an inpatient in the hospital but the only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is that there is no nexus between the injuries and cause of death. It appears from the evidence that even after second surgery, the infection could not be set right and hence, plate was fixed externally