SAINABA YUSUFF, WIFE OF LATE P.K. YUSUFF, PARAMBILKUDY HOUSE, NOCHIMA KARA, EDATHALA VILLAGE ALUVA TALUK, Vs. ZIYAD T.K., S/O.T.P. KHADER, THANISSERY HOUSE, ERUMELI KARA, KUMARAPURAM P.O.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the aged mother, widow and children of one Yusuff who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 28/04/98. Allegedly while the deceased was undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he breathed his last on 03/08/98 due to pulmonary embolism. On the ill -fated day while the deceased was walking along the road he was hit down by the motorcycle ridden by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent Insurance Company. The appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased approached the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/ - as compensation alleging that the death was the direct result of the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. However, the learned Tribunal treated the claim as one for personal injury and awarded only a sum of Rs. 70,000/ - as compensation.

(2.) IN this appeal the appellants are challenging the said finding as well as consequential award which according to them are grossly inadequate.

(3.) THE main grievance voiced against the award by the learned counsel for the appellants is that though Ext. A7 certificate which was duly proved through PW3, the Doctor who examined the deceased was pressed into service to substantiate the case of the appellants that the death of the deceased was the direct result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no nexus between the death and the injuries sustained by the deceased mainly for the reason that there is no postmortem certificate to support the claim of the appellants. Going through Ext. A7, we notice that the deceased was admitted to the hospital on 28/04/98 at 2.00 p.m. with multiple fractures and difficulty in passing urine following the road traffic accident occurred on the same day. Medical records reveal that in addition to bilateral fracture to the radius he has sustained fracture to inferior pubic ramus. A combined reading of details of injuries mentioned in the wound certificate (Ext. A6) and the subsequent follow up action advised as per Ext. A7 would take us to the conclusion that even after the discharge of the deceased from the hospital on 14/05/98 he had been under treatment for urethral dilatation every month. This is corroborated by the testimony of PW3, Doctor who has done this exercise. He would depose that after discharge on 14/05/98, the deceased was advised to come every month for urethral dilatation. The deceased was re -admitted again on 08/06/98 for cutting the plaster and for pin removal and was discharged on 09/06/98. He was reviewed again on 29/06/98 and was advised Cristoscopy under General Anasthasia (dilatation of urethra for problems in passing urine). On 22/07/98 urethral dilatation was done under General Anasthasia and he was discharged on 23/07/98. He was next seen on 03/08/98. On that date also urethral dilatation was done under General Anasthasia. Though the deceased was advised to go home about 6.30 p.m. all on a sudden he lost consciousness and developed breathing difficulty and he breathed his last at 7.10 p.m. on the same day. According to PW3, the sudden death was due to pulmonary embolism which was consequent to the difficulty in passing urine which was on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident.