Krishnakumar v. Murukan, Sree Vidya and National Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 19TH MAGHA, 1939** **OP (MAC).No. 4 of 2018** **---------------------** **PETITIONER : ----------** **KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.DIVAKARA KAMMATH, KANNAMPARAMBU HOUSE, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.P.VISWANATHA MENON** **RESPONDENTS : -----------** **1. MURUKAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. KAPPAYANDI PILLI, KUNNATHUVEEDU, KACHERIPADI BHAGAM, PARAVOOTHARA KARA, PARUR VILLAGE, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 513.** **2. SREE VIDYA, W/O.MURUKAN, KUNNATHUVEEDU, KACHERIPADI, N.PARAVUR, PIN CODE - 683 513, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, KACHERIPADI, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 513.** **R3 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR,SC,** **THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp/ 24/2/2018** **OP (MAC).No. 4 of 2018 (O) --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE O.P(M.V).NO.712/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, N.PARUR. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY CARD DATED 28/1/2015 ISSUED FROM THE MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE CUM DISCHARGE SUMMARY CERTIFICATE DATED 28/1/2015 ISSUED FROM THE MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2436/2017 IN O.P(M.V).NO.712/2015 DATED 16/10/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2435/2017 IN O.P(M.V).NO.712/2015 DATED 16.10.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2017 IN I.A.NO.2435/2017 IN O.P.(M.V).NO.712/2015. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.12.2017 IN I.A.NO.2436/2017 IN O.P.(M.V).NO.712/2015.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **bp/24/2/2018** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------O.P(MAC) No.4 of 2018 -----------------------------------------------** Dated this the 8[th] day of February, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is the claimant in O.P(MV) No.712/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on 22.12.2014, involving a motor car bearing registration No.KL-42/J-341, driven and owned by respondents 1 and 2 respectively and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was riding a motor cycle. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court in this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking an order to quash Exts.P6 and P7 orders of the Tribunal. By Ext.P6 order dated 23.10.2017, I.A.No.2345/2017 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to advance O.P(MV)No.712/2015 from 5.12.2017 stands dismissed on the ground that there is no urgency. By O.P(MAC) No.4 of 2018 2 Ext.P7 order dated 5.12.2017, I.A. No.2436/2017 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to assess his disability by the Medical Board at the Medical College, Alappuzha stands dismissed on the ground that the petition is highly belated, as the case is a target case. 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that Exts.P6 and P7 orders were passed by the Tribunal in Chamber, without hearing his counsel before the Tribunal. 4. On 9.1.2018, when this original petition came up for admission, in view of the specific case of the petitioner that Exts.P6 and P7 orders were passed by the Tribunal in Chamber without hearing his counsel, the Registry was directed to get a report from the Tribunal. Pursuant to the said order a report dated 12.1.2018 has been received from the Tribunal, wherein it has been stated as follows: “O.P.(M.V)712/15 pending before this Tribunal is filed by Krishnakumar on 23.12.2015 for getting compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On receipt of the OP, notices were ordered to respondents 1 to 3 for filing their written statement. Though notices were served on R1 to R3 before the first posting of 24.05.2016, none of the respondents have filed their written statement till 17.08.2017. So the case was posted for evidence to 10.10.2017. On 10.10.2017 the petitioner was not ready for evidence and the case was O.P(MAC) No.4 of 2018 3 adjourned for evidence to 05.12.2017. On 20.10.2017 the petitioner Krishnakumar filed I.A.No.2436/17 for a medical examination of the petitioner to assess his disability. I.A.2435/17 was also filed on the same day by the petitioner for advancing the case for the consideration of I.A.2436/17. When the Bench Clerk placed the above two I.A.'s before me in the Chamber I examined both I.A's in detail and I found no urgency in advancing the case and I.A.2435/17 dismissed on 23.10.2017 on that ground in my Chamber itself and posted I.A.2436/17 to 05.12.2017. When the case was called on 05.12.2017 in open court I.A.2436/17 was dismissed as the above petition is in a highly belated and filed only to prolong the disposal of the case as it is evident from the records that no document, even the FIR or Wound Certificate is produced by the petitioner to show that the sustained injury in the accident. As this is a target case also, the petition is dismissed on sufficient ground in open court.” 5. As evident from the report received from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, I.A. No.2435/2017, which was an application filed by the petitioner seeking an order to advance the case was dismissed in Chamber, without hearing the learned counsel on both sides. Therefore, on 17.1.2018, this Court admitted the original petition on file and issued urgent notice by speed post to respondents 1 and 2, returnable within three weeks. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer took notice. This Court has also O.P(MAC) No.4 of 2018 4 granted an interim stay of all further proceedings in O.P(MV) No.712/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur for a period of one month. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer. Despite service of notice none appears for respondents 1 and 2. 7. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to the legality or otherwise of Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the Tribunal, whereby I.A. Nos.2435/2017 and 2436/2017 in O.P(MV) No.712/2015 stand dismissed. 8. The claim petition is one filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in which the petitioner is claiming a total compensation of 15 lakhs on account of the injuries₹ sustained in a motor accident. The claim petition is one dated 23.12.2015. As evident from the report received from the Tribunal, none of the respondents in O.P.(M.V)No.712/2015 filed written statement till 17.8.2017 and the case was posted for evidence to 10.10.2017. On 10.10.2017 the petitioner was not ready for evidence and the case was adjourned to 5.12.2017. On 20.10.2017 the petitioner filed I.A. No.2436/2017 for medical examination to assess his disability. I.A. No.2435/2017 was also filed on the very same day for O.P(MAC) No.4 of 2018 5 advancing the case for consideration of I.A.No.2436/2017. Relying on Ext.P2 discharge summary card dated 28.1.2015 and Ext.P3 wound certificate dated 28.1.2015 issued from the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, the petitioner would contend that he sustained serious injuries in the motor accident. 9. As per the report of the Tribunal, when the Bench Clerk placed the above two interlocutory applications in Chamber, the learned Judge examined both applications and found no urgency to advance the case and accordingly I.A.No.2435/2017 was dismissed on 23.10.2017. The procedure adopted by the learned Judge while dismissing I.A. No.2435/2017, without hearing the learned counsel on both sides, is perse illegal and on that sole ground Ext.P6 order is liable to be set aside. 10. As far as I.A.No.2436/2017 is concerned, it was an application filed by the petitioner for medical examination by the Medical Board in order to assess his disability. The specific case of the petitioner is that the said application was also dismissed in Chamber, without listing it in open court. In the report dated 12.1.2018 the stand taken by the Tribunal is that the case was called on 5.12.2017 in open court and 6 O.P(MAC) No.4 of 2018 I.A.No.2436/2017 was dismissed. 11. A reading of Ext.P7 order would show that the said interlocutory application stands dismissed on the ground that the petition is highly belated. The claim petition is one dated 23.12.2015 and as evident from the report dated 12.1.2018 of the Tribunal it was listed for trial for the first time only on 10.10.2017. Though in the report it has been stated that no documents, even the FIR and wound certificate, are produced by the petitioner to show that he sustained injuries in the accident, the only reason stated in Ext.P7 order for rejecting I.A.No.2436/2017 is that the application is highly belated. 12. In **Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union [(1974) 3 SCC 318]** the Apex Court, while considering the challenge made against an award under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held that the giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfitness in the conclusion. The O.P(MAC) No.4 of 2018 7 authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi judicial authorities to the Apex Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. ## 13. In **Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax** **Department v. Shukla and Brothers [(2010) 4 SCC 785]** the Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing O.P(MAC) No.4 of 2018 8 and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. 14. In **Shukla and Brothers' case (supra)** the Apex Court held further that, a litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his O.P(MAC) No.4 of 2018 9 taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment. 15. In **English v. Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd. [(2002) 1 WLR 2409]** the Court of Appeal held that, a judicial decision which affected the substantive rights of the parties should be reasoned, although some judicial decisions, e.g. interlocutory case management decisions, did not require reasons; that, while a judge was not obliged to deal with every argument or identify or explain every factor which weighed with him, the issues the resolution of which were vital to his conclusion should be identified and the manner in which he resolved them briefly but clearly explained, so that the judgment enabled the parties and any appellate tribunal readily to analyse the reasoning essential to his decision. 16. A cryptic order like Ext.P7 passed by the Tribunal suffers from vice of arbitrariness. Since giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice, such an order passed by the Tribunal must speak on its face. A cryptic order like the one which is impugned in this original petition virtually makes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution nugatory and ineffective, inasmuch as, such an order will be of little assistance to this Court while 10 O.P(MAC) No.4 of 2018 analysing the reasoning essential to such a decision. In such circumstances, Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal cannot also be sustained. In the result, this original petition is disposed of by setting aside Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in I.A. Nos.2435/2017 and 2436/2017 and the said Tribunal is directed to re-consider the aforesaid interlocutory applications with notice to the petitioner and also to the respondents. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The trial in O.P(MV) No.712/2015 shall be deferred till such orders are passed. **Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** ab