IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1632 of 2008() ---------------------------------- OPMV.992/1999 OF PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------------------- NIKHIL.E.P, (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER PADMINI, AREEKKARAKANDI THADATHIL HOUSE, VENGERI POST, KOZHIKODE (DATE OF BIRTH - 17/05/1991) BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.MANJU M. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. P.K. MURALEEDHARAN, PUTHIYEDATHU KANDIYIL HOUSE, MADAVOOR POST, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CHEROTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) FOR R1 SMT.R.RAJITHA FOR R1 SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1632 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)992/99. A boy aged 8 years at the time of the accident sustained injuries. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.22,500/- and the claimant has come up in appeal before this Court. A disability certificate Ext.C1 had been referred to and the doctor was examined as PW1. But the Tribunal rejected that certificate. According to the learned counsel for the appellant on account of the seriousness of the head injury the boy had become virtually invalid for all practical purposes and his condition also has become totally useless and therefore it is a case where some consideration is required. The nature of injury sustained by the boy would show that there was bleeding from ear immediately after the accident. He had sustained fracture on the occipital bone as well as on the temporal bone. There was haematoma. The M.A.C.A. 1632 OF 2008 -:2:- boy has also developed traumatic meningitis. Now, the disability certificate would show that the boy is having 50% disability. The Board found that there are abnormalities in his speech and gait. The Tribunal found fault with the disability certificate on the ground that the members of the Board were not expert in finding out that disability because one was an orthopedician and another a doctor on physical medicine. The boy was examined by a psychiatrist but unfortunately the psychiatrist was not examined. There is some force when the Tribunal say that the boy had developed these complications on account of the head injury sustained is to be assessed by a Board which consists of experts in neuro-surgery and psychiatrists. When the Board was not constituted in that way the Tribunal could have referred the matter to an expert Medical Board instead of simply rejecting Ext.C1 disability certificate. The whole question revolves on the fact that what was the condition of the boy prior to the accident and what was the impact of the accident on the boy whether his physical and mental faculty M.A.C.A. 1632 OF 2008 -:3:- has been affected, whether a prosperous or bright future is spoiled. These things can always be established by getting medical evidence and other attending circumstances in a make those things avail case. Unfortunately, the claimant has also not chosen to able for a proper appreciation of the matter. If really the future of the boy is totally affected on account of the unfortunate accident he not only deserves sympathy but also is entitled to compensation which the Tribunal has to grant if it is satisfied. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to refer the boy to a medical Board specifically stating that the Board has to be constituted with a neuro-physician or surgeon as well as a psychiatrist and the Board shall asses the disability of the person after perusing the documents at the time of the accident and the treatment undergone. The claimant can also adduce evidence to show the boy's condition prior to the accident for a proper evaluation of the case. Both sides are permitted to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in M.A.C.A. 1632 OF 2008 -:4:- support of their respective contentions and the matter to be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.12.08. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-