MACT Can Seek Second Opinion If It Doubts Correctness Of Disability Certificate Produced By Claimant: Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court observed that if the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals have any doubt regarding authenticity or correctness of disability certificate, a second opinion can be sought.
The Court referred to Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 (KMV Rules) that confers the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (MACT) with the power to direct any Medical Officer in a Government hospital to examine the injured party and issue disability certificate indicating the degree and extent of the disability suffered.
A Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun observed, “As has often been repeated by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals cannot sit as mute spectators while considering the claims. Per contra, the Tribunals are expected to take a pro-active role in the decision making process. If the Tribunals have any doubt regarding authenticity or correctness of the certificate, a second opinion can be sought, as provided in the Government Order or in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 387 of the KMV Rules.”
Advocate R. Bindu (Sasthamangalam) appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Rajit represented the respondents.
The appellant, having sustained severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident, filed a claim petition seeking compensation, which was limited to a much lesser amount. The appellant appealed against the compensation awarded by the MACT.
The appellant argued that the MACT had committed a gross illegality while assessing the appellant's monthly income, which was contrary to his claim. Another point of contention was the reduction of the percentage of disability from 21% to 12%, despite the production of a disability certificate.
The Court explained that the MACT had not given any reason for not accepting the finding in disability certificate, except the appellant's failure to examine the doctor who issued the certificate.
“Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 ('the KMV Rules' for short) confers the Tribunal with the power to direct any Medical Officer in a Government hospital or in a Medical College Hospital or any Board consisting of such officers to examine the injured and issue disability certificate indicating the degree and extent of the disability,” the Bench remarked.
The Bench accepted the disability certificate provided by the appellant after referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India and Another v. Talwinder Singh (2012), where it was held that the opinion of the Medical Board as an expert body must be given due weight, value and credence.
Consequently, the Court held, “Consequently, the compensation for permanent disability suffered is to be recalculated…The Tribunal having granted just compensation under other heads, the other contentions raised by the Counsel for the appellant are rejected.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the appeal.
Cause Title: Joby George v. Siby Valloran & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/52428)