Remanded

Ananthan v. Laiju Baby and Others

Kerala HC14 Feb 2017MACA/1021/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against MACT award on motor accident claim. Court held Tribunal unilaterally reducing disability percentage from 12.69% to 5% without seeking Medical Board opinion was unfair. Award set aside and remitted for fresh consideration. Either record oral evidence or refer for medical board assessment.

What did the court decide?

Award set aside and matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration with direction to record oral evidence and consider disability certificate or refer to Medical Board.

Ananthan Vs Laiju Baby and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/25TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

MACA.NO. 1021 OF 2011 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.509/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 21-01-2011

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :

¶8

ANANTHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VALLATHADAM HOUSE, CHATHAKKUDAM DESOM, VALLACHIRA VILLAGE & P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 :

¶11

1. LAIJU BABY, PONTHOKKAN HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680026

¶12

2. NASSAR KHAN, S/O.MOIDEEN, PALAKKATTUKARAN HOUSE, KODALY P.O., MATTATHUR-680692.

¶13

3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, KUNNAMKULAM P.O.-680503.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.MENON R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶18

M.A.C.A. No.1021 of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2017

¶20

This appeal is preferred by the injured against

¶21

the award in O.P.(M.V.) No.509 of 2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The appellant's case is that on 06.12.2005 at 7.20 p.m while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8/Y-2630 through VazhiyambalamKodakara public road and reached at Veterinary Hospital Kodakara, an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-8/A-916 driven by the 2^nd respondent hit against their vehicle and he sustained injuries. Immediately he was removed to hospital.

¶22

3^rd respondent admitted the insurance of the auto rickshaw (KL-8/A-916) and 5^th respondent admitted the insurance of the motor bike (KL-8/Y-2630) and others were ex-parte. The petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence in the trial court. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked from the side of the appellant. Policy was marked as Ext.B1. After considering the documentary evidence, the

¶23

M.A.C.A. No.1021 of 2011 2

¶24

learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.74,445/with 7% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs from R1 to R3. Being aggrieved by that, the injured preferred this appeal.

¶25

In a motor accident claim petition, the

¶26

injured is entitled to get a just compensation. Ext.A3 wound certificate shows that he was admitted in St. James hospital, Chalakudy. There was complaint of pain over right ankle and swelling and deformity right ankle. Ext.A4 discharge card shows that he was admitted in the St.James hospital on 06.12.2005 and discharged on 19.12.2005. Ext.A4(a) discharge card shows that he was again admitted in that hospital on 12.07.2007 and discharged on 13.07.2007. Ext.A5 disability certificate shows that the appellant has 12.69% of whole body disability. While granting compensation, the learned Tribunal opined that Ext.A5 disability certificate was not issued by a Medical Board and granted disability at 5%. Appellant contended that without mentioning the reason the Tribunal cannot reject Ext.A5 disability certificate.

¶27

It is true that the tribunal is not an expert to

¶28

M.A.C.A. No.1021 of 2011 3

¶29

reduce the disability from 12.5% to 5%. If the tribunal has any different view with regard to the percentage of disability mentioned in the disability certificate, the primary responsibility is to refer the injured to the Medical Board for expert opinion. In the absence of such a procedure, a mere opinion of the Tribunal reducing the disability is not fare.

¶30

In the circumstance, the award passed by the tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration with a direction to record the oral evidence of the injured and also consider the disability certificate and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. If the learned Tribunal has any disagreement with the disability, the injured shall be referred to a Medical Board for assessing the disability.

¶31

This M.A.C.A. is disposed of with the above

¶32

observation.

¶33

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶34

/ True Copy /

¶35

¶36

P.A. To Judge

Ananthan v. Laiju Baby and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananthan v. Laiju Baby and Others

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

George Vs the Manager

Raveendran Vs P.a.Sajeer

Rajan Pillai Vs Sanilkumar R

Aneesh @ Unni Vs Anilkumar

Baiju Vs Vijayakumar

P.v.Ousephkutty Vs P.v.Joy