A.Shihabudeen vs P.Chandran on 4 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9111 of 2009(H)


1. A.SHIHABUDEEN, S/O.A.BHAVA
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MUHAMMED FAIZAL,S/O. A.BHAVA
3. SHAMUSDHEEN, S/O. A.BHAVA
4. A.UBAID, S/O. A.BHAVA

                        Vs



1. P.CHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :04/06/2009

 O R D E R
                       V.GIRI, J.
                -------------------------
              W.P.(C).No.9111 of 2009
                -------------------------
          Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009.


                      JUDGMENT

The petitioners challenge Ext.P2 order

passed by the Workmen’s Compensation

Commissioner, Kannur, refusing to refer the

respondent herein for a further medical examination

by the Medical Board of the Medical College Hospital,

Kozhikode.

2. The respondent herein is the claimant

before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner

praying for compensation on account of an injury

sustained by him. It seems that originally as per

Ext.A3 disability certificate, his disability was shown

as 50%. Later on the request of the applicant for

assessing the occupational disability, the District

Medical Board, Wayanad assessed the occupational

disability at 100% and permanent disability at 90%.

By the time, it was 2004.

W.P.(C).No.9111 of 2009

:: 2 ::

3. Later, the petitioners herein, apparently

when the case came up for trial, moved an

application referring the applicant for a medical

examination by the Medical Board. This has been

rejected under Ext.P2 and the same is challenged in

this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that, at this stage, they may be permitted to

take up a contention before the Workmen’s

Compensation Commissioner as regards the

acceptability of the second certificate and to adduce

evidence to persuade the Workmen’s Compensation

Commissioner to reject the same. It is open to the

petitioners to do so. But such liberty should not

result in the applicant again being subjected to

medical examination.

Without prejudice to such right of the

petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of. I make it

W.P.(C).No.9111 of 2009

:: 3 ::

clear that this direction will be operative, only if the

claim petition is not yet disposed of by the

Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

Sd/-

(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/

//true copy//