Madras High Court
R. James vs Assistant Manager, National Insurance ... on 17 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: I(2004)ACC269, 2004ACJ918
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 601 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Tiruvallur, aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.2002 made in I.A. No. 204 of 2002 in M.C.O.P. No. 601 of 1999 directing the petitioner-injured to subject himself before the Medical Board with regard to his injuries and disability, has filed the above revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent insurance company.
3. The petitioner has filed M.C.O.P. No. 601 of 1999 claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 in respect of grievous injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.3.1999. The respondent insurance company filed a written statement disputing the claim of the petitioner.
4. Pending O.P., the respondent insurance company filed I.A. No. 204 of 2002 seeking direction to examine the claimant by the Medical Board, Chennai. The learned Subordinate Judge, by the impugned order, after holding that the disability certificate Exh. P-13 issued by the doctor PW 3 is on the higher side, allowed the application of the insurance company and directed claimant to undergo medical examination before the Medical Board. The approach of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be appreciated. It is seen that in support of the claim of injured-claimant, the doctor who assessed the disability of the injured was examined as PW 3 and he assessed disability of the claimant to the extent of 70 per cent. He also issued disability certificate which has been marked as Exh. P-13. There is no dispute that the respondent herein insurance company was afforded an opportunity of cross-examining the doctor with reference to the disability suffered by claimant and assessed by him (Exh. P-13). In such a circumstance, I am unable to understand how the insurance company is justified in filing a petition seeking direction for examination by the Medical Board.
5. As stated earlier, if there is any flaw either in the assessment or in the certificate issued by the doctor, the same can be highlighted at the time of argument. When such recourse is available, I am unable to accept the view expressed by the learned Subordinate Judge. In a matter like this, particularly, claiming compensation in a motor vehicle accident, if the victims are subjected to such recourse as ordered by the Tribunal, it would be difficult for them to substantiate their claim. It is settled law that the procedures to be followed in motor accident cases are summary in nature.
6. Taking note of all the above aspects, I am unable to sustain the impugned order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Accordingly, the order dated 15.4.2002 made in I.A. No. 204 of 2002 in M.C.O.P. No. 601 of 1999 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 2858 of 2003 is closed.