K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. A very disturbing and distressing trend present in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, purportedly in the interest of reducing the pendency, comes to fore in the above case.

2. The petitioner herein is the claimant in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1165 of 2009 pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam [hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal]. The driver, registered owner and the insurer of the vehicle are the respondents. The claim application, as produced at Exhibit P1, is dated 08.06.2009. On a reference to the District Medical Board, as per order of the Tribunal dated 18.02.2012, as per its report dated 23.12.2013, after delay of one year and 10 months, the District Medical Board at the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha opined that the petitioner had no disability. The aggrieved petitioner filed I.A. No. 51 of 2014 on 02.01.2014 seeking reference to the State Medical Board. The petitioner was before this court in O.P. (MAC) No. 31 of 2014, alleging that his interlocutory application seeking reference to the State Medical Board was not being considered by the Tribunal. After getting remarks of the Presiding Officer, which indicated that the officer was not at fault, this Court on 13.03.2014 disposed the Original Petition directing the Tribunal to pass orders in I.A. No. 51 of 2014. The Tribunal was directed to verify whether the delay was caused due to the laches of the petitioner and dispose of the application on merits.

3. The present Original Petition had been filed by the petitioner alleging that despite the specific orders of this Court, the Tribunal had deliberately desisted from considering the I.A. It was also averred that, without considering the I.A. the petitioner's wife, who was present on behalf of the petitioner, was examined and the evidence closed when the application for reference to the State Medical Board was still kept pending. It was claimed that on 01.08.2014 despite the petitioner's counsel seeking for deferring the evidence of the petitioner, the Tribunal recorded the evidence of the wife of the petitioner. On 12.08.2014, the evidence of the petitioner was closed, while the I.A. was kept pending without any orders passed thereon. The petitioner himself is said to have come to India from Doha, where he was employed, on 05.09.2014 anticipating consideration of the I.A. On 10.09.2014 the Tribunal was on leave and the case was adjourned to 10.10.2014. The petitioner, hence, was compelled to return to Doha to resume his duty, on 20.09.2014.

4. Again, since the conduct of the Tribunal was called in question, this Court called for a report from the Tribunal. The Tribunal was specifically directed to report on the averments made in the Original Petition. A copy of the Original Petition was also forwarded to the Tribunal by the Registry. The Tribunal submitted a report on 14.10.2014. The Tribunal, at the outset, pointed out the enormity of the claim made and the reduction subsequently sought for, by amendment. The petitioner has a contention that he was compelled to file the amendment application reducing the claim. The pendency of the case for more than five years and the frequent adjournments sought by the petitioner's counsel was emphasised. After referring to the direction of this Court to dispose of I.A. No. 51 of 2014, the Tribunal went on to state that the Medical Board, Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha had already forwarded a report, where no disability was discernible. The petitioner's wife's evidence was specifically noticed. The salary drawn by the petitioner, as deposed by the wife of the petitioner, according to the Tribunal, further indicated that there is no disability. The absence of the petitioner, despite direction to be present, was also pointed out. An apparent difference in signature in the affidavit affirmed by the petitioner and the signature in the Passport was also emphasised.

5. The Tribunal, however, failed to explain as to why I.A. No