IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 202 of 2010 ----------------------------------- OPMV.554/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT / CLAIMANT ---------------------------------------- ABDUL KHADER, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. VEERAN, THEKKEKKUNNATH PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, EDATHALA KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. BABY, S/O. PAILY VARGHESE, KANJIRAMATTATHIL HOUSE, AIKKARANADU VILLAGE, VADAYAMBADI, NEAR VATTAKUZHI BRIDGE. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., M.M.JUNCTION, KOLANCHERRY. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, P.M.JUNCTION, PMJ BUILDERS, ELOOR ROAD, KALAMASSERRY. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.202 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of March 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This appeal illustrates how the jurisdiction which is conferred on Tribunals and this court to reach out to the victims of motor accidents can be misused, if constant vigil is not maintained while dealing with claims for compensation. 2. Appellant alleged that he sustained certain injuries in a road traffic accident while he was travelling on a two wheeler. His case was that another two wheeler hit against his bike resulting in a fall leading to injuries which are extracted herein below: (1) Multiple abrasions on left elbow. (2) Multiple abrasions on left knee. (3) Swelling around left knee with tenderness on left tibia. 3. According to the appellant, he got himself admitted in Najath hospital at Aluva after the accident. He was discharged on the third day “in a good condition” as is revealed from the Ext.A5 wound certificate issued by Najath Hospital. 4. Appellant claimed a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries which he allegedly sustained in the accident. He pressed into service Exts.A1 to A13 documents in support of his claim. One of the senior officers of M/S Fertilisers and Chemicals, Eloor, was examined to speak about the monthly salary of the appellant in which he was stated to have been working as Senior Technician. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence M.A.C.A.No.202 OF 2010 :: 2 :: on record, came to the conclusion that appellant was entitled to get only a sum of Rs.35,625/- and accordingly passed an award which is impugned in this appeal. 5. Mrs.Vaheeda Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the Tribunal committed serious illegality in refusing to award just and reasonable compensation, especially, keeping in view the long term treatment that the appellant had undergone at various hospitals in connection with the injuries. 6. When we queried the learned counsel about the so called prolonged treatment, a huge bundle of medical records was made available for our perusal. The file revealed that the appellant had visited not less than 27 hospitals apart from various other medical laboratories allegedly in connection with the treatment of the above injuries sustained by him. The records further revealed that he had visited several other doctors also for problems like stomach ailment, chest pain, etc. He had also visited scores of laboratories to conduct examination of blood, urine, etc. He had also taken ECG and conducted other tests as well in the course of the so called “prolonged treatment”. 7. In fact the appellant had produced large number of bills before the Tribunal as Ext.A12 series. The Tribunal noticed that many of the bills were in the names of several other persons and that too apparently for purchase of medicines which were not at all connected with the alleged injury sustained by the appellant. The Tribunal took pains to segregate the bills relevant to the accident and found that only a sum of Rs.5,374.72/- could be granted to the appellant whereas the claim made by him under the head of medical expenses was around Rs.47,973/-. M.A.C.A.No.202 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 8. As mentioned earlier, Ext.A5 is the accident register cum wound certificate issued by Najath Hospital where the appellant was admitted on October 6, 2003 on which day he allegedly sustained injuries in the accident. It is seen from the certificate that he was discharged from the hospital on October 9, 2003 'in a good condition'. Of course, apart from the three injuries which we have extracted in the earlier part of this judgment, the certificate revealed that x- ray showed crack on lateral condyle of left tibia. Obviously for that reason, he was put treated as an in-patient treatment for three days for post-traumatic stiffness. Anyhow, thereafter the appellant is seen to have visited one hospital after another and obtained certificates and other connected records for his visit. 9. Two other certificates which have been pressed into service by the appellant are Exts.A10 and A11. These are seen issued from Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission Hospital, Ernakulam and the Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur respectively. Ext.A10 is dated April 7, 2005 (nearly two years after the accident) which refers to a consultation made by the appellant in connection with some discomfort in his knee. The doctor who examined the appellant certified that he had pain on left knee. The certificate issued by Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur which was marked as Ext.A11 also refers to the injury on the knee. There is no explanation as to why the appellant went to these hospitals and collected these certificate. But curiously the appellant did not bother to step into the box nor did he examine any of the doctors to speak about the accident and the injuries. 10. However, the appellant contends that the Tribunal committed serious illegality in refusing to award the entire amount for the medical treatment covered under the medical bills produced by him. We have already referred to M.A.C.A.No.202 OF 2010 :: 4 :: that aspect. The Tribunal found majority of the bills were in the name of various other persons. Moreover, the bills were for conducting laboratory test, ECG and for purchase of medicines which apparently did not have any nexus to the alleged injury sustained by the appellant. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to disagree with the view taken by the Tribunal. 11. The other contention raised by the learned counsel is that the Tribunal committed grave error in refusing to keep in view the monthly income of the appellant. In this context, it may be noticed that appellant had examined one of the managers of the company where the appellant had been working. Curiously, this witness stated that the appellant had not lost any salary for the period during which he was absent from duty. In other words, there was no loss of income for the appellant in connection with the accident. 12. It is true that the police had registered a crime against respondent No.1 in connection with the accident. The Tribunal found that in the absence of any contra evidence, respondent No.1 alone was responsible for the accident. But in this context, it may be noticed that for the alleged accident on October 6, 2003, a crime was registered, at the instance of the appellant, only on October 9, 2003. According to the appellant, he could not inform the matter to the police because he was admitted in the hospital. Anyhow, we do not propose to deal with that aspect of the matter any further. Having considered the entire materials available on record, we have no hesitation to hold that this litigation is yet another instance of abuse of process. 13. Of late, it is being noticed that several appeals are being filed by claimants without any compunction, even in cases where adequate compensation M.A.C.A.No.202 OF 2010 :: 5 :: has been awarded by the Tribunals. One reason may be that a fixed court fee of only Rs.100/- is being levied on an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award passed by the Tribunals. 14. Rule 396 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 deals with the procedure to be followed while filing appeal against the award of a Claims Tribunal. Sub Rule (2) stipulates that the appeal memorandum shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed in Sub- rule (3) of Rule 397. 15. Rule 397(1) prescribes the scales of fee payable on an advalorem basis, by a claimant on an application for compensation to be filed before the Tribunal. For an amount upto Rs.5,000/-, a court fee of Rs.10 has to be paid. From Rs.5,001 to Rs.50,000/-, the fee payable is Rs.10 plus ¼% of the amount by which the claim exceeds Rs.5,000/-. From Rs.50,001 to Rs.1,00,000/-, the fee payable is Rs.122.50 plus ½% of the amount by which the claim exceeds Rs.50,000/- and for a claim of over Rs.1,00,000/- the fee payable is Rs.372.50 plus 1% of the amount by which the amount of claim exceeds Rs.1,00,000/-. Of course the Tribunal is given the discretionary power to exempt the party from the payment of the fee prescribed under sub-rule (1). 16. But Sub-rule (3) postulates that the fee for an appeal shall be rupees one hundred only. In other words, on a memorandum of appeal court fee is not payable on advalorem basis or in tune with the scales which we have referred to above, as in the case of claim petitions. We do not understand the rationale behind this. 17. Anyhow, we do not propose to question the wisdom of the rule making authority. In our view, the legislature has to bestow its attention on this aspect M.A.C.A.No.202 OF 2010 :: 6 :: atleast to ensure that the appellate court (in this case the High Court) is not flooded with frivolous appeals. 18. In many instances, we notice that several claimants are challenging the awards from the Tribunals on an experimental basis, and that too in cases in which statutory period of limitation is over with petitions to condone delay. Ultimately in many cases delay will be condoned for one reason or the other. We are only trying to highlight the fact that many appeals are being filed before this court apparently for the reason that there is no liability to pay any court fee on an advalorem basis. Only a nominal sum of Rs.100/- is being levied on such appeals. This litigative adventurism should be curbed atleast to weed out frivolous and merit-less appeals. We are sure that the attention of the authorities concerned will be bestowed on this aspect. 19. As far as the merit of this appeal is concerned, we have already held that it is totally frivolous. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. Though this is a fit case in which exemplary cost should be awarded, we refrain from doing so. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary of the State forthwith to be placed before the Government for appropriate action. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes