1 wp-5333.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5333 OF 2010 Sameer Prabhakar Khutale. .. Petitioner Vs Vijay Govardhan Lakeri & Anr. .. Respondent ­­ Shri Rahul Walvekar i/by Shri Sangramsinh Yadav for the Petitioner. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Notice is duly served to the 2nd Respondent who is the real contesting party. On 26th August, 2010, this Court directed that the notice for final disposal shall be issued. 2. The Petitioner in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the Claimant in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The claim petition was filed for claiming compensation on account of injury sustained in the accident. According to the case of the Petitioner, he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs. 2 wp-5333.10 3. An application was made at Exhibit –76 by the 2nd Respondent which is the insurer of the alleged offending vehicle on which the impugned order has been passed. It is contended in the application at Exhibit­76 that the 2nd Respondent desires to lead evidence by way of rebuttal as the 2nd Respondent has not admitted the disability certificate produced by the Petitioner. Therefore, a prayer was made that the Petitioner be directed to get examined himself by a panel doctor of the 2nd Respondent/Insurer. The said application has been allowed by the impugned order. 4. After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, I find that the impugned order is illegal. The burden is on the Petitioner/Claimant to prove disability certificate and to establish the disability as claimed by him. If the Petitioner fails to prove disability certificate, the Tribunal is bound to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Nothing prevents the 2nd Respondent from examining a medical practitioner as an expert. However, the Tribunal cannot compel the claimant to undergo medical examination by a panel doctor of the 2nd Respondent­Insurer. 5. In the circumstances, the Petition must succeed and I pass the following order. (a) The impugned order dated 16th June, 2010 is quashed and set aside and the Application at Exhibit – 76 is 3 wp-5333.10 rejected. (b) It is clarified that this order will not preclude the 2nd Respondent from leading appropriate evidence in rebuttal including examination of a medical practitioner as an expert. (A.S.OKA, J)