High Court Kerala High Court

Prajith.N.M. vs Abdul Khader on 18 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
Prajith.N.M. vs Abdul Khader on 18 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18844 of 2009(A)


1. PRAJITH.N.M., S/O.PRABHAKARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.MOIDEEN, A.A.K, SARAS
                       ...       Respondent

2. KUNHABDULLA, S/O.KUNHUMUHAMMED,

3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN

                For Respondent  :SMT.SARAH SALVY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :18/09/2009

 O R D E R
                         S. SIRI JAGAN, J
               ...............................................
                 W.P(C) No. 18844 of 2009
              .................................................
        Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the claimant in O.P(M.V) No. 320/07

before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. He filed

the O.P. seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs for the

injuries sustained by him in an accident which occurred on

2.10.2006. In the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal,

the petitioner filed an application seeking to refer him for

examination by a medical board to assess the disability suffered

by him. That was rejected by the Tribunal by Ext.P5 order

holding that considering the injury the Tribunal does not find it

necessary to refer the petitioner to a medical board. The

petitioner submits that as is evident from Exts.P1, P2 and P3

medical certificates, the petitioner has suffered very serious

injuries including head injury. Therefore the question of

disability can be assessed only by a medical board for which

purpose only the petitioner has filed the application to the

Tribunal for referring the petitioner to the medical board for

W.P(C) No. 18844 of 2009 -2-

examination.

2. I have heard the counsel for the 3rd respondent also.

3. The 2nd respondent has not chosen to enter appearance.

The 1st respondent although entered appearance has not chosen

to object to the prayers in the writ petition. On going through

the medical reports produced as Exts.P1 to P3, I find that the

petitioner has suffered very serious injuries including head

injuries. Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules empowers

the tribunal to refer a petitioner in a motor accident claim for

medical examination to determine disabilities suffered by him.

4. I am satisfied that this is a very fit case where the

Tribunal ought to have referred the petitioner for medical

examination by a medical board as requested by him.

Accordingly Ext.P5 is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to refer

the petitioner for medical examination by a medical board within

two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs