IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 1252 of 2010() ------------------------------------ OPMV.636/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- RATHEESH T.N., S/O.NARAYANAN, THRIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THRIKKUR PALLIYARA DESOM, THRIKKUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. THANKACHAN KURIAKOSE, KUDIYIRIKKAL HOUSE MAROTTICHAL, VIA PUTHOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. KRISHNADAS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, EDASSERY HOUSE, KALLAYI DESOM, KALLUR VILLAGE, AMBALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL), SMT.R.RAJITHA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1252 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in OP(MV)No.636/2006. The claimant, a 30 year old man, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.34,300/=. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement. 2. Heard. The main grievance of the claimant is that on account of the serious head injury sustained, he had neuro psychological problem and disability certificate had been produced and it has not been considered by the Tribunal. It is quite unfortunate that neither the claimant was examined nor the doctor. Neuro disability is an intrinsic one which requires medical expert's evidence. Regarding other problems that arises of the neuro complaints, examination of the claimant also will be required. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit before me that even a proof affidavit was not permitted to : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1252 OF 2010 file and therefore the claimant was not examined at all. I feel this is a fit case where an opportunity can be given so that the claimant can be examined to find out whether really he had suffered any disability. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit the claimant to get himself examined as well as the expert to prove the disability and thereafter the Tribunal is directed to refix the compensation in accordance with law. Needless to say that other side is also permitted to let in evidence. The claimant is also directed to take out notice to the insurance company after he enters appearance. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 7.12.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1252 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T