Remanded

Suryaprakash v. Babu

Kerala HC1 Jul 2022OP (MAC)/66/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition challenges an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejecting an application to re-assess the petitioner's disability for loss of taste and smell. The High Court quashed the impugned order, directing the Tribunal to reconsider the application based on fixed principles.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order set aside; Tribunal directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application and pass fresh orders within one month.

Suryaprakash Vs Babu — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

OP (MAC) NO. 66 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 834/2015 OF MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , PALAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶9

SURYAPRAKASH AGED 47 YEARS S/O GOVINDAN NAIR, SREENIVAS PALAVEETTIL HOUSE, THENKARA POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582

¶10

BY ADVS. V.HARISH RAJAN VISHNURAJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 BABU S/O IRIPPAKADAN, PANANKAVIL HOUSE, KADAMBODE POST, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676521

¶13

2 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, 2ND FLOOR, PALLIKKAD SHOPPING COMPLEX, B16 277278, KOZHIKODE ROAD, MANJERI, PIN - 676121 BY ADV C.P.SABARI

¶14

BY ADV.SRI. LAL GEORGE(SR) – S.C.

¶15

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O.P.(MAC) No.66 of 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.834/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the respondents in the claim petition. Ext.P4 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board which was marked as Ext.C1 before the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, the Medical Board has issued Ext.P4 certificate without assessing the disability with regard to petitioner's loss of taste and total loss of smell and that Ext.P4 does not reflect the correct percentage of his disability. Accordingly, Ext.P5 interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal to direct the Medical Board to consider his loss of taste (anosmia) partial or total loss of smell and to issue additional disability certificate. The learned Tribunal, by Ext.P6 order, rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner

¶20

O.P.(MAC) No.66 of 2022

¶21

¶22

has not produced any medical records to substantiate his contention. It is also stated in Ext.P6 order that the application was filed on 16.2.2022 when the case was posted for hearing.

¶23

This Original Petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 and to direct the Tribunal to issue appropriate direction to the Medical Board to re-assess the petitioner's permanent disability and to consider the petitioner's loss of taste and (anosmia) partial or total loss of smell and to issue an additional disability certificate.

¶24

Heard Sri. Harish Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Senior Standing Counsel Sri. Lal George for 2^nd respondent and Sri. C.P.Sabari, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶25

The accident is of the year 2013. True, the proceedings before the Tribunal has to be brought to a logical conclusion at the earliest. The victim has to get just and reasonable compensation commensurate with disability and injuries sustained. To assess the functional disability as well

¶26

O.P.(MAC) No.66 of 2022

¶27

¶28

the compensation for loss of earning capacity, disability certificate has to be relied on. The burden of proof is on the claimant to prove the disability. The standard for awarding compensation on the basis of disability and occupation has been laid down by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343] . The Tribunal did not consider the question as to whether, to arrive at a just and reasonable compensation, the prayer of the petitioner in Ext.P5 is to be allowed or not. Ext.P6 is therefore set aside.

¶29

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Tribunal to reconsider Ext.P5 application on the basis of the above observations and to pass fresh orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

The Original Petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶33

al/-

¶34

O.P.(MAC) No.66 of 2022

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 66/2022

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN OP (MV) NO. 834 OF 2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY. Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IA NO. 4451 OF 2015 IN OP (MV) NO. 834 OF 2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD Exhibit P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD CERTIFICATE DATED 08.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A NO. 459 OF 2022 IN OP (MV) NO. 834 OF 2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD Exhibit P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2022 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD IN I.A NO. 459 OF 2022 IN OP (MV) NO. 834 OF 2015

Suryaprakash v. Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryaprakash v. Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mubarak P.M. Vs the Regional Director

Bhavya Gangadhar, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

A. George Vs Regional Transport Officer/Joint Regional Transport Officer

Soman Vs Anandhu

Kamalanethran a.G, Vs Secretary

Mohammed Kasim Vs the Secretary