IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23918 of 2007(V) --------------------------------------- OPMV.774/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- PRADEEP KUMAR P.C., S/O. KARUNAKARAN, PARVATHY NILAYAM, P.O. KOLACHERY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MURALEEDHARAN S., S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, SHANTHI BHAVAN, P.O. EACHUR, KANNUR. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KANNUR. ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.2398/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE OP(MV) NO.774/03 FILED BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD DT. 2.11.02 ISSUED FROM THE SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, KANNUR. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DT. 2.11.02 ISSUED FROM THE SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, KANNUR. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE RIGHT LEG OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE DOCKET OF THE FILE OP(MV) NO.774/03 KEPT WITH THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA. NO.3496/07 IN OP.(MV) NO.774/03. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA. 3497/07 IN OP.(MV) NO.774/03. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 6.7.07 IN IA. NO.3496/07 IN OP(MV) NO.774/03. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 6.7.07 IN IA. 3497/07 IN OP.(MV) NO.774/03. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 23918 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the claimant in OP(MV) 774/2003. He filed IA 3497/2007 praying that he be referred to a Medical Board for assessing his disability consequent upon the accident. That request of the petitioner has been turned down by the Tribunal by Ext.P9 order, mainly for the reason that the application is filed at a stage when the case was listed for evidence. It is challenging this order that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Though service is complete, there is no appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent. 3. True, the Tribunal is right in its observation that the application is belated. But then, having regard to the fact that the petitioner wants to prove his claim of disability WP(C) 23918/07 2 by the examination of a medical board, I do not think the delay by itself should be a reason for declining the request. Therefore, I cannot uphold the conclusion in Ext.P9. 4. The writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P9 and directing that the petitioner shall be referred to a medical board as sought for by him in Ext.P4 application filed by him. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal for necessary consequential orders. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-