Allowed

Namdev Mardolkar v. Chintamani Hemant Amonkar and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jun 2023WP/220/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's rejection of a petitioner's application to produce a disability certificate was dismissed. The High Court held that evidence of disabilities arising from the accident must be considered and adjudged on merits by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside and the application for production of the medical disability certificate was allowed.

Namdev Mardolkar Vs Chintamani Hemant Amonkar and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

12-WP-220-2023.DOC

¶2

Andreza

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 220 OF 2023

Namdev Mardolkar

… Petitioner

Versus

Chintamani Hemant Amonkar & anr. …Respondents

¶9

Mr. Paresh Pandurang Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM: M. S. KARNIK, J DATED: 15^th JUNE 2023

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶14

2. The petitioner is the claimant in a Claim Petition filed for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition is pending before the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at North Goa, Panaji, Goa, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶15

3. The office report indicates that respondent no.1 is yet to be served. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an Advocate's notice has been duly served on respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. The vehicle was insured with the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2-

¶16

Page 1 of 5 15^th June 2023

¶17

12-WP-220-2023.DOC

¶18

Insurance Company is duly represented by their counsel. The petition was opposed by learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶19

4. In the claim petition, at paragraph 24, the petitioner has stated that after the accident when he suffered a fracture on his right leg, he was operated on 11.12.2019 and subsequently discharged. He however remained bed-ridden due to said injury and due to which he has suffered secondary diseases such as hypertension which led to a stroke sometime in August, 2020. Primary injury of his fracture caused neurovascular related ailments due to the immobility induced on him due to the accident. Such a claim made by the petitioner obviously will be tested by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence.

¶20

5. During the pendency of the claim petition, the petitioner filed an application on 08.04.2023 to place on record a disability certificate of claimant. In the application at paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5, it is stated thus :

¶21

“2. Subsequent to the accident suffered by the claimant at the hands of the respondent no.1 on 10.12.2019, the claimant was operated upon for fractures in his leg and was recommended complete bed-rest. The claimant was not able to regain his walking ability as the fracture did not heal. During this period, of bed rest, lack of OPD facilities at GMC due to Covid Pandemic induced lockdown, sometime around August 2020, the claimant

¶22

Page 2 of 5 15^th June 2023

¶23

12-WP-220-2023.DOC

¶24

who suffers from hypertension, suffered a paralytic stroke which left him significantly paralyzed.

¶25

The claimant applied for himself to be examined by the Disability Board at Goa Medical College, who upon examining the claimant issued the above mentioned certificate on 08.04.2022.

¶26

The said certificate indicates the claimant is paralyzed, first due to the accident leading to the fracture in his leg which led to hypertension and in turn the patient suffered a stroke. His disability score is at 80%.

¶27

The Disability certificate dated 08.04.2022 annexed herein is very relevant to the above mentioned claim petition and will help this court to establish the nature and gravity of the medical illness suffered by the claimant and to do justice in the matter.”

¶28

The petitioner therefore prayed for production of medical disability certificate.

¶29

6. A reply was duly filed by the respondent no.2 opposing the production of the said document. No reply was filed by the respondent no.1 opposing the application for production of disability certificate.

¶30

7. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the application with liberty to the claimant to take steps in the matter to get himself examined for the purpose of ascertaining the disability suffered by

¶31

Page 3 of 5 15^th June 2023

¶32

12-WP-220-2023.DOC

¶33

him as a result of the accident in this case. The Tribunal observed that the certificate of disability sought to be produced by the claimant is in respect of the disability suffered by him due to the Cerebrovascular accident of the Right hemiplegia, which in the considered view of the Tribunal, was not relevant for the purpose of his inquiry.

¶34

8. In my opinion, there was no question of prejudice being caused to any of the parties if the application were to be allowed. In any case, as set out herein before, in paragraph 24 of the claim petition, the petitioner had stated that he suffered secondary disease such as hypertension which led to a stroke in August 2020, the primary reason being due to the fracture suffered by the petitioner as a result of the accident.

¶35

9. The contention of the petitioner that such a disability is a consequence of the accident suffered, is a question which obviously has to be gone into by the Tribunal on its own merits on the basis of the evidence adduced.

¶36

10. At this stage, there was no difficulty in allowing the application filed by the petitioner. It needs to be borne in mind that in such matters involving claims in accident cases, a liberal approach needs

¶37

Page 4 of 5 15^th June 2023

¶38

12-WP-220-2023.DOC

¶39

to be adopted considering the beneficent object for which statute has been enacted.

¶40

11. The claim petition, therefore, is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application dated 12.07.2022 for production of the medical disability certificate dated 08.04.2023 is allowed.

¶41

12. All contentions as to the relevance of the documents are kept

¶42

open.

¶43

13. Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶44

M. S. KARNIK, J

¶45

Digitally signed by ANDREZA ANDREZA PEREIRA PEREIRA Date: 2023.06.15 18:10:13 +05'30'

¶46

Page 5 of 5 15^th June 2023

Namdev Mardolkar v. Chintamani Hemant Amonkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namdev Mardolkar v. Chintamani Hemant Amonkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kusum Pandari Naik and Anr. Vs Kamal Soman Naik Raikar @ Shobhavati N. Parpati ( Since Deceased) Thr Lrs

Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs Vast India Pvt. Ltd.

Suresh Vasudeva Porobo Sinari., Vs Village Panchayat Curca, Bambolim and Talaulim, Rep. by Its Sarpanch and 3 Ors.

Jose Cirilo C. Fernandes(Dec)by Lrs. and Ors. Vs Dy. Collector, N.Goa and Anr.

Sunil Vamanketkar Vs Vaman Bhaskar Ketkar and Anr.

Sunil Vaman Ketkar Vs Vaman Bhaskar Ketkar and Anr.