IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2451 of 2008()
1. BRITTO, S/O.BERNARD, KALLUMOOTTIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AMBILI SREEKUMAR, DEEPA SREE,
... Respondent
2. DHARMARAJAN.V, PARVATHY MANDIRAM,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :10/11/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M.A.C.A. No. 2451 of 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated: NOVEMBER 10, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J
The appellant sustained certain injuries in a road traffic
accident, that occurred on November 14, 2002. He claimed
compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the alleged
offending vehicle. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, held that, the
appellant would be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 33,030/- (Rupees
Thirty three thousand and Thirty only) as compensation with
interest at the rate of 6 % and directed the insurance company to
indemnify the owner of the vehicle.
2. The above award is impugned in this appeal; primarily on
the ground that, the appellant was not given sufficient
opportunity to get him self examined by a Medical Board and also
to adduce further evidence in the matter in support of his
contention that he had been disabled to a great extent because of
M.A.C.A No. 2451 of 2008
2
the seriousness of the injury. A perusal of the award will in fact
show that the Tribunal did not entertain an application filed by the
appellant, for referral to the Medical Board, on the ground that
the plea was made belatedly.
3. However, when the appeal came up before us on an
earlier occasion, we had directed the appellant to appear before
the Medical Board attached to the District Hospital, Kollam.
4. We have perused the report submitted by the Medical
Board and taken it on record and marked as Ext. X1. The report
indicates that, the appellant may requires a further evaluation by
a Neuro Surgeon. We do not deem it necessary to refer to the
other aspects mentioned by the Board in the said report, at this
stage, in view of the order that we propose to pass.
5. We have carefully perused the entire materials available
on record. We have also heard learned counsel for the appellant
and respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.
6. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, particularly the report of the Medical Board referred to
above, we are of the view that, the appellant has to be given an
opportunity to adduce further evidence in the matter. It will be
open to the appellant to do so, by getting himself examined by a
M.A.C.A No. 2451 of 2008
3
Medical Board and examine the doctors, if any, to substantiate his
contentions. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall also be at
liberty to adduce evidence, if so advised.
7. Therefore, the impugned award to the extent it has
quantified the amount of compensation is set aside. The Tribunal
shall pass a fresh award quantifying the amount of compensation
that the appellant would be entitled to get, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
The appellant and respondent No. 3 shall appear before the
Tribunal on December 6, 2010.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
The Registry shall transmit Ext. X1, report of the Medical
Board, in a sealed cover along with the lower court records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
kmd