Compensation must adequately reflect the suffering and treatment duration, distinguishing between accident-related and pre-existing health issues.

J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~ P.S.Gopinathan, J.

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act

1988, was preferred by the petitioner in O.P.(M.V) No.1082/2001 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, with a contention that the sum of Rs.3,23,000/- awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained to him at 1.30p.m on 24.4.2001 in a road accident is inadequate. According to the appellant, while he driving a Maruthi Van bearing Reg.No.KL-5J 8558 along Koottayam - Kumili road, a Mini Lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-5B 6919 owned, driven and insured by respondents 1 to 3 respectively hit against and as a result, the appellant sustained injuries. Attributing negligence against the 2nd respondent, he preferred the above petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking a sum of Rs.6,80,000/-.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the insurance liability but contending that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the appellant and that the 2nd respondent was not negligent and that therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable to compensate the appellant. The appellant was further put to strict proof regarding the age, occupation and monthly income. It was also contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.

3. After raising the issues, the parties were sent for enquiry. On the side of the appellant, he was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A22 were marked. The Tribunal below, on appraisal of the materials on record, arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the tempo van by the 2nd respondent and hence all the respondents are liable to compensate the appellant. It was further found that the appellant, who was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, got discharged after conservative treatment and then admitted in Bharat Hospital, Kottayam for 19 days. The appellant had sustained (i) 5 x 4cm lacerated wound exposing the upper tibia just below right knee (ii) 6 x 6cm lacerated wound on lateral aspect below right knee. X-ray revealed fracture right fibula (undisplaced). Ext.A9 the certificate issued from the Bharat Hospital would show that while undergoing treatment, on 30.4.2001, appellant suffered cardiac problem and he had been to the Cardiologic Intensive Care Unit and had undergone treatment. It is also revealed that the appellant was suffering from hypertension and diabetes. During the course of treatment, he was also affected with pulmonary embolism. After the discharge from the hospital, the appellant had to undergo bypass surgery at Amrita Hospital, Kochi. It was also opined that the cardiac problem was aggravated because of the stress and strain of the injuries sustained in the accident. The appellant was employed as a General Manager in Dar Al Ummah Printing and Publishing Company, Abudhabi and was earning a sum of Rs.90,000/- per month. The Tribunal below for the purpose of determining compensation, fixed the income of the appellant at Rs.30,000/- per month, taking into account that had he been working in India he may not have got more than Rs.30,000/- per month. Relying upon Ext.A18 disability certificate, the Tribunal had also found that the appellant who was then aged 53 years had sustained 12% permanent disability. On the above conclusion, the Tribunal awarded the compensation mentioned earlier. The details of the compensation awarded on different heads are as follows:

Loss of earning - Rs. 60,000/-

(@ Rs.30,000/- for two months)

Transport to hospital - Rs.1,000/- Bystander expenses Rs.2,000/-

Treatment expenses Rs.50,000/- (as against bill for Rs.1,92,154.34/-)

Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-

Permanent disability Rs.2,00,000/-

4. Heard both sides. Perused the evidence on record.

5. Adv. Sri.Rajeev V.Kurup, the learned counsel for the appellant, generally argued that the compensation awarded on all counts are ina