IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1755 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.3192/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER -------------- KALPAKAVALLY, W/O.LATE DAMODHARAN, KODAPPULLY HOUSE, P.O.CHAZHUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.V.V.ASHA RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023. 2. A.A.VASU, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AYYANKANDATH HOUSE, MADAVAKKARA, NANMANIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 301. ADVOCATE BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1755 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant, a woman, is the appellant. She allegedly suffered permanent disablement as a result of the motor accident which took place on 13.04.2003. She staked the claim for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, took the view that permanent disablement has not been proved. Consequently the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim under Section 163A of the M.V Act. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant advances two fold contentions. Firstly it is contended that the injuries suffered is such that even without any better evidence permanent disablement stands proved. We are unable to accept this contention. Merely by looking at the wound certificate, no court can come to any safe and authentic conclusion about the nature of the injuries, ie. whether there is permanent disablement or the extent of permanent disablement, except perhaps in the case of certain scheduled injuries specified in the Workmen's M.A.C.A No.1755 of 2011 2 Compensation Act. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, is perfectly justified in taking the view that the appellant is at fault in not having adduced any evidence about the permanent disablement if any. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that even in the absence of evidence about permanent disablement and its extent, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the application in an omnibus manner. If not under Section 163A, the petition should have been considered the claim under Section 166 of the M.V Act. In the alternative the appellant could have been referred to a Medical Board to find out the extent of her physical disablement, contends the learned counsel. We find merit in that contention. 4. A claim for compensation is not to be dismissed by a Tribunal on the basis of technicality alone. No Tribunal can afford to ignore or overlook the mandate of Section 165 of the M.V Act. The very purpose of constitution of the Tribunal is to ensure that just compensation is paid. It is now trite that the claimant has the option to stake his claim either under Section 166 or 163A of the M.V Act. If the claim is not maintainable under Section 163A, the Tribunal should certainly have explored M.A.C.A No.1755 of 2011 3 the possibility of the matter being disposed of under Section 166. If the claimant doesn't want the claim to be considered under Section 166, then only the Tribunal could non suit the claimant. 5. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the impugned award deserves to be set aside. An opportunity deserves to be granted to the appellant to further prosecute her claim. We take that view indulgently. 6. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The impugned award is set aside; c) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of O.P(MV) No.3192 of 2003 afresh in accordance with law; d) The parties shall appear on 15.12.2011. The parties shall be permitted to adduce such other relevant and necessary evidence that they want to. The Tribunal shall call upon the appellant to specify whether the claim is to be considered under Section 166 or under Section 163A of the M.V Act. The Tribunal shall then proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law; e) The Tribunal shall make every endeavour to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible – at any rate, within a M.A.C.A No.1755 of 2011 4 period of 6 months from 15.12.2011. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. 7. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the appellant for production before the Tribunal. The Registry shall also forthwith communicate the judgment to the Tribunal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE) rtr/