IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 2299 of 2010() ----------------------- OPMV.515/2005 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ AJAYAKUMAR P.C., AGED 29, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, PUTHENVELI HOUSE, M.P.WARD NO.X, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.P.S.ANISHAD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. RENJIKUMAR, S/O.K.G.SADANANDAN, KULAMAN POIKAYIL HOUSE, PURAMATTAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST, PIN - 689 543. 2. PRASAD M.S., S/O.NJANA SUNDARAM, MULAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, P.P.WARD IX, THRIKKODITHANAM, PALLICKACHIRAYIL, CHANGANASSERRY, PIN - 686 101. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 688 001. ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS FOR R1 & 2 SMT.S.SIKKY FOR R1 & 2 SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.2299 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 20/12/2004. He is an autorickshaw driver by profession. He suffered multiple injuries including comminuted compound fracture - both bones upper third of right leg and compound fracture iliac crest (right side). He was allegedly in- patient for a period of ten days initially. Later also, he was admitted to continue treatment, it is submitted. The tribunal, by the impugned award, directed payment of an amount of Rs.48,541/- as per the details which are available in paragraph 8 of the impugned award which we extract below: Transport to hospital Rs.750/- pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- M.A.C.A.No.2299 of 2010 2 loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Medical expenses Rs.27,791/- ----------------- Total Rs.48,541/- ======= 2. The tribunal had found that the insurance company is not liable as the policy of insurance was not in existence on the date of the accident that is 20/12/2004. For the subsequent period, that is from 21/12/2004 to 20/12/2005, there was a policy of insurance. For an earlier period expiring on 28/11/2004 also there was policy of insurance; but for the relevant period, there was no policy. Therefore the insurer was absolved. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, first of all contends that the tribunal erred in absolving the insurance company of any liability. To a pointed question, the learned counsel is unable to explain and assert that on the date of the accident, that is on 20/12/2004, there was any valid policy of insurance. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the course adopted by the tribunal of absolving the insurance company cannot be faulted. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the quantum of compensation awarded is not sufficient. The M.A.C.A.No.2299 of 2010 3 disability certificate has not been proved. We are certainly satisfied that the tribunal has not considered the question of quantum of compensation in the proper perspective. We find merit in that submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of earning. His grievance that the tribunal has not ascertained the extent of physical disability is also found to be justified. The disability certificate has not been proved. The tribunal does not appear to have physically verified the disability of the claimant. The appellant had not requested and the tribunal had not forwarded the appellant before any medical board for competent assessment of the extent of physical disability. We have gone through Ext.A6 disability certificate. We must say that the same is not inspiring and we are unable to accept that the tribunal was at fault for not swallowing Ext.A6 disability certificate. 5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the ideal course to be followed by us in the facts and circumstances of this case is to send the matter back to the tribunal for fresh disposal of the claim. M.A.C.A.No.2299 of 2010 4 6. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The conclusion of the tribunal that the 3rd respondent/insurance company is not liable is upheld. c) The matter is sent back to the tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving the appellant/complainant and the respondents/driver and owner further opportunity to adduce further relevant evidence, if any. d) We direct the parties (claimant and respondents 1 and 2) to appear before the tribunal on 19/09/2011 to continue the proceedings. The tribunal shall ensure fresh disposal of the O.P (M.V) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from 19/09/2011. 7. Hand over copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.2299 of 2010 5 M.A.C.A.No.2299 of 2010 6 M.A.C.A.No.2299 of 2010 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010