The main legal point established in the judgment is that compensation for personal injury in motor vehicle accidents should consider the permanent disability suffered by the victim and the reasonableness of seeking medical treatment, taking into account immigration status and job prospects.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('ksrtc' for short), questioning the award of compensation of Rs. 23,32,900/- with simple interest at the rate of 6 percent perannum from the date of petition till the date of payment of M. V. C. No. 353 of 1983 to the first respondent.

( 2 ) A bus belonging to the Corporation bearing No. MYF 700 driven by the second respondent was involved in an accident at 6 p. m. on 6-12-1983 near Shivaji Talkies traffic signal. The bus hit an autorickshaw bearing No. KLC 992 and the scooter bearing No. CAE 2956, driven by the first respondent. The passenger in the autorickshaw was thrown out and sustained injury. The first respondent and his wife who was riding on the pillion fell down. The first respondent sustained serious fractures with bleeding injuries and his wife sustained minor injuries and they were removed to the Victoria Hospital and were shifted to St. Philomina's Hospital on the next day, where the first respondent was an in-patient from 7-12-1982 to 10-3-1983. Thereafter he was removed to Karnataka Medical Centre for further treatment up to 30-3-1983. The first respondent was working as a Mechanical Engineer in Enstar Engineering Corporation, Houston, Texas in USA. He took further treatment at the Hospital in Houston.

( 3 ) THE first respondent filed MVC No. 363/1983 claiming compensation of Rupees 31,55,904-04p. and the passenger in the autorickshaw filed MVC 109/1983 claiming compensation. Both the petitions were filed together and tried together and were disposed of by a common judgment. It was found that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the second respondent and that the first respondent is entitled to compensation as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved by the judgment in MVC No. 363/1983 the Corporation preferred this appeal, questioning their liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded to the first respondent, who preferred cross-objections.

( 4 ) SRI U. L. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant did not question the finding of the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent-driver. He contended that the Tribunal was in error in awarding compensation for the treatment taken by the first respondent in USA and in not deducting the insurance coverage which was available to the first respondent. He submitted that the first respondent had a duty to mitigate the damages by getting treated in India, where equally efficient treatment is available. He further contended that the first respondent was not entitled to claim compensation based on medical bills which did hot bear his name. He opposed the cross-objections as barred by limitation.

( 5 ) SRI Balasubrahmaniam, learned Counsel for the first respondent on the other hand contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, having regard to the fact that the first respondent underwent untold suffering and he is crippled for life as his right hand always remains in a clawed position like the paw of a ferocious tiger, that he cannot even greet people with folded hands and cannot walk without the aid of a stick on account of the fractures and the injuries to the hip and has lost the lustre of youthful life, including sex life and also lost all the chances of participation in social activities, sports and swimming which were dear to him. He further contends that the first respondent being an immigrant, having residence and job in USA could not afford to stay back in India and lose his Green Card and the lucrative job in USA and that Dr. Richard Eppright from whom he received treatment is a world renowned surgeon and that there was no question of mitigating the damages under the said circumstances and that the said contention which was not raised in pleadings cannot be permitted now. He further contended that the interest awarded is too low and that the present value of the Rupee in co