High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of

Ragesh v. Frank John, Sanjay Sebastian, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., GANESAN S/O. GOPALANACHARI, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:OP (MAC) No.76 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date
2022-09-19
Court Decision / Holding
Ext.P5 order set aside. I.A. No. 2/2022 (as corrected) shall be considered afresh in light of G.O.(P) No.161/97/H&FWD and Rule 387, with fresh orders to be passed by the Tribunal. The Original Petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ragesh

Respondents

  • Frank John
  • Sanjay Sebastian
  • The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
  • GANESAN S/O. GOPALANACHARI
  • National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Anupama Johny
  • • K.K.Chandralekha

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Lal K. Joseph (SC)
  • • Sri. Lal George (SC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Ragesh, is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 387/2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The accident occurred on 29.11.2015. The petitioner sought examination and assessment of permanent disability through Ext. P2 under Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, resulting in Ext. P3, a Special Medical Board certificate dated 22.12.2021 certifying a whole body permanent disability of 5%. The petitioner contends Ext. P3 was issued even though the certificate is signed by three doctors, he was examined by only one, and therefore the disability reported does not reflect his actual condition. He filed Ext. P4 seeking a referral for further medical examination by a Medical Board at the Medical College, Ernakulam. The Tribunal rejected Ext. P4 (Ext. P5) on the basis that the certificate is valid as it was signed by three doctors and that the petitioner has only orthopedic disability; it rejected further examination, though it allowed examination of any signatory to Ext. P3. The petitioner relies on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 to stress the standard for disability-based compensation and cites Government Order G.O.(P) No.161/97/H&FWD (dated 15.05.1997) mandating proper boards and appellate review by the State Disability Assessment Board. The High Court finds the Ext. P3 not in conformity with the GO guidelines, and that the Tribunal did not consider all relevant aspects. Ext. P5 is set aside and I.A. No. 2/2022 is to be considered afresh in light of the GO and the Rule. The Original Petition is disposed of with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 387G.O.(P) No.161/97/H&FWD dated 15.05.1997 (Paras. 9 and 10)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Unbiased and accurate assessment of the permanent disability (as a guiding principle in disability certificates)
  • State Disability Assessment Board to be the final appellate authority in disability assessment cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P3 disability certificate does not indicate his actual disability since it was issued after examination by only one doctor, despite the certificate bearing the signatures of three doctors. He seeks reference for further medical examination by a Medical Board as per Rule 387 and GO guidelines. He relies on the Supreme Court standard for disability-based compensation (Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar) and the Government Order to argue that the certificate must reflect careful and unbiased evaluation and must be issued by appropriately constituted boards with appellate review by the State Disability Assessment Board. The relief sought is a fresh examination and reevaluation under the GO guidelines.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that Ext. P3 is issued by three doctors and thus credible; the Tribunal rightly dismissed Ext. P4; the petitioner has primarily an orthopedic disability and the request for further examination is unfounded. They contend the standard and guidelines cited by the petitioner do not warrant remand, and the Tribunal’s evaluation should stand.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar(2011) 1 SCC 343PositiveCited to establish the standard for awarding compensation on the basis of disability.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ragesh v. Frank John, Sanjay Sebastian, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., GANESAN S/O. GOPALANACHARI, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 28TH BHADRA, 1944 OP (MAC) NO. 76 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2022 IN I.A NO.2 OF 2022 IN OPMV 387/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS** ## **TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** **RAGESH AGED 33 YEARS S/O. GANESH, CHENNATTUPARAMBU HOUSE, CHATHARI, THRIPOONITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 301.** **BY ADVS. ANUPAMA JOHNY K.K.CHANDRALEKHA** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 FRANK JOHN AGED 21 YEARS S/O. JACOB, KALLACHAMMURI HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P. O., NOW RESIDING AT VELIYATH HOUSE, NEAR STELLA MARY'S SCHOOL, UDAYAMPEROOR P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 301. 2 SANJAY SEBASTIAN AGED 27 YEARS S/O. JOSHY K. F., KUNJUVEETTIL HOUSE, JANATHA, VYTTILA P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 019. 3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., IST FLOOR, THARAYIL CHAMBERS, OPP. HP PETROL PUMP, NH BYPASS, VYTTILA, KOCHI – 682 019, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.** **OP (MAC). No.76 OF 2022** **2** **4 GANESAN S/O. GOPALANACHARI, 17/257, CHENATTUPARAMBIL, CHATHARI, NADAMA, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 301. 5 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DAMODAR CHAMBERS, IIND FLOOR, P.B.NO.48, STATUE JUNCTION, THRIPUNITHURA – 682 301, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER. R3 - SRI. LAL K. JOSEPH - SC R5 - SRI. LAL GEORGE - SC** **THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP (MAC). No.76 OF 2022** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 387 of 2017 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The accident happened on 29.11.2015. The petitioner made Ext. P2 application dated 16.01.2020 before the Tribunal under Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('Rules', for short) for his examination by a Medical Board constituted at District Hospital, Ernakulam for issuance of disability certificate. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner appeared before the Special Medical Board at General Hospital, Ernakulam and he was issued with Ext.P3 certificate dated 22.12.2021 certifying his whole body permanent disability as 5%. According to the petitioner, though Ext.P3 **OP (MAC). No.76 OF 2022** **4** disability certificate is signed by three Doctors, only one Doctor had examined him and that Ext.P3 does not indicate his actual disability. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application dated 10.06.2022 to refer him for further medical examination by the Medical Board constituted at Medical College, Ernakulam. 2. The Tribunal rejected Ext.P4 application by Ext.P5 order dated 24.06.2022 holding that Ext.P3 disability certificate is signed by three Doctors and therefore the contention of the petitioner that he was examined only by one Doctor cannot be believed. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner has only orthopedic disability and the prayer to refer him for further medical examination cannot be allowed and dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to examine any of the signatories to Ext.P3 certificate. **OP (MAC). No.76 OF 2022** **5** 3. The Tribunal had allowed the application of the petitioner under Rule 387 of the Rules for examination by Medical Board and he appeared before the Medical Board and Ext.P3 certificate is issued indicating his whole body permanent disability. The petitioner contends that Ext.P3 does not indicate his actual disability and prays for further examination by Medical Board constituted at Medical College, Ernakulam. The standard for awarding compensation on the basis of disability has been laid _**v**_ down by the Apex Court in **Raj Kumar . Ajay Kumar** [(2011) 1 SCC 343]. 4. In G.O(P) No.161/97/H&FWD dated 15.05.1997, the Government have issued revised orders/guidelines for issuing disability certificates to be produced before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Workmen's Compensation Court, individual compensation claims in other Courts etc. Paragraphs **OP (MAC). No.76 OF 2022** **6** ## '9' and '10' of the said G.O read thus:- “9. Disability Certificates to be produced before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Workmen's Compensation Court, individual compensation claims in other Courts etc., will be issued by a Specialist Doctor (Government or Private) with not less than 10 years standing in the speciality, who has not treated the patient in the acute stage after the accident. This is to ensure unbiased and accurate assessment of the permanent disability. Perusal of all relevant documents regarding the injuries sustained and treatment instituted etc., should be made and certificate of disability, issued only after careful and through evaluation. 10. Appeals/ Second opinion in the case of such certificates will be referred to the State Disability Assessment Board. The State Disability Assessment Board will be the final appellate authority in these cases also.” 5. On a perusal of Ext P3 certificate, it can be seen that the same is not issued in terms of the above Government Order. The Government Order provides how the Standing Disability Assessment Boards and the State Disability Assessment Board shall be constituted. Further, the Government Order itself provides for an appeal from the disability **OP (MAC). No.76 OF 2022** **7** assessed by the Standing Disability Assessment Boards constituted in the Medical College Hospitals and District/General Hospitals in the Districts to the State Disability Assessment Board. 6. The Tribunal has not adverted to all relevant aspects while considering the application under Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Accordingly, Ext.P5 order is set aside. I.A. No. 1/2022 shall be considered afresh in the light of G.O.(P) No.161/97/H&FWD dated 15.05.1997 and the aforesaid Rule. The Tribunal shall proceed with the claim petition only after passing fresh orders on I.A. No.1/2022. The Original Petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- ## **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SPR **OP (MAC). No.76 OF 2022** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **' - PETITIONER S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE CUM DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.12.2015 ISSUED BY MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERRNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SEEKING EXAMINED AND ASSESSED THE PERMANENT DISABILITY SUSTAINED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 22.12.2021.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SEEKING A FURTHER MEDICAL EXAMINATION BY THE MEDICAL BOARD BEARING I.A.NO.2/2022 IN OP(MV) NO.387/2017 AND THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2022 IN I.A.NO.2/2022 IN OP(MV) NO.387/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.** **OP (MAC). No.76 OF 2022** **9** The I.A No.1/2022, mentioned twice in the 6[th] paragraph of the Judgment dated 19.09.2022 is corrected as “I.A No.2/2022” as per order dated 09.11.2022 in I.A No.1/2022 in OP (MAC) 76 of 2022. **Sd/Joint Registrar**