Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals Not Mute Spectators, Can Seek Second Opinion To Determine Authenticity Of Disability Certificate: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently remarked that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have an active role in decision-making process and cannot act as a mute spectator while considering claims.Justice V G Arun referred to a government order (G.O(P) No.161/97/H&FWD) and Rule 387 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to state that the Tribunal has powers to take second opinion if they have doubts regarding the authenticity or correctness of disability certificate. “As has often been repeated by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals cannot sit as mute spectators while considering the claims. Per contra, the Tribunals are expected to take a pro-active role in the decision making process. If the Tribunals have any doubt regarding authenticity or correctness of the certificate, a second opinion can be sought, as provided in the Government Order or in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 387 of the KMV Rules.”In this case, the appellant sustained injuries in a road accident in October 2013. He approached Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of rupees 24,98,000, which was limited to rupees 10,00,000. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's award of rupees 3,47,000 with 9% interest per annum as compensation, the appellant has approached the High Court.The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal awarded compensation by wrongly taking his monthly salary as rupees 10,000 instead of rupees 35,000. The appellant was an interior decoration works contractor. He also challenged the unilateral reduction of the percentage of disability from 21% to 12% despite the production of disability certificates. It was argued that the compensation awarded was meagre considering the nature of injuries sustained and prolonged medical treatment. The Counsel for the insurance company stated that the appellant did not examine the doctor who issued the disability certificate. It was argued that the Tribunal rightly discarded the disability certificate by fixing the percentage of disability on its own. The Court observed that the appellant has not produced proof to show his income and the finding of the Tribunal taking rupees 10,000 as monthly income warrants no interference. Regarding reduction of percentage of disability by the Tribunal, the Court referred to a government order containing orders/guidelines to be followed for issuance of disability certificates for producing before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Workmen's Compensation Courts etc. It noted thus: “As per the G.O(P) No.161/97/H&FWD, the disability certificates are to be issued by a specialist doctor (Government or Private) with not less than 10 years standing in the speciality and who has not treated the patient in the acute stage after the accident. This is to ensure unbiased and accurate assessment of the permanent disability.”The Court further referred to Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 which confers powers upon the Tribunal to direct Medical Officer in a government hospital or medical college or any medical board to examine the injured person by assessing his disability and to issue disability certificate. In the facts of the case, the Court stated that Tribunal has not given reasons to not accept the percentage of disability, except the failure of the Appellant to examine the doctor. Relying upon Union of India and Another v. Talwinder Singh (2012), the Court stated that opinion of an expert Medical Board must be given due credit. Therefore, the Court stated that the Tribunal should not have reduced the disability percentage of the appellant from 21% to 12% and must have accepted his disability percentage as indicated in his disability certificate. The Court thus recalculated and enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant based on his disability. Counsel for Appellant: Advocate R Bindu (Sasthamagalam)Counsel for Respondents: Advocate RajitCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 441Case Title: Joby George v Siby ValloranCase Number: MACA No.4084 of 2019Click here to read/download Order

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals Not Mute Spectators, Can Seek Second Opinion To Determine Authenticity Of Disability Certificate: Kerala HC

Tellmy Jolly

Tags