P.Ubaid, J.

The question of law referred to us for resolution is very short and simple, concerning the practical application of Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) , which reads as follows:

"Examination of the injured by a Medical Officer: The Claims Tribunal may, if it considers necessary, direct any medical officer in a Government Hospital or in a Medical College Hospital or any Board consisting of such Medical Officers to examine the injured and issue disability certificate indicating the degree and extent of the disability, if any, sustained as a result of the accident."

2. The petitioner herein is the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1424 of 2010 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. Pending the proceedings, he filed application as I.A No.6026 of 2010 under Rule 387 of the Rules for a direction for his examination by a Medical Board for the assessment of the nature and extent of his permanent disability, which he alleges. The learned Trial Judge directed the petitioner to be present in open court in view of the directions of this Court in Kalesh v. Sudheer [ 2010 (1) KLT 537] and Sundaran v. Shaju [2011 (3) KLT 904], for personal examination of the petitioner to know and perceive his physical disability, before passing orders for examination by a Medical Board. When the petitioner failed to appear in court, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application by order dated 11.3.201. The said order is under challenge in this Original Petition(MAC).

3. When this Original Petition came up for hearing, a learned Single Judge of this Court doubted the correctness of the directions in Kalesh v. Sudheer [ 2010 (1) KLT 537] and Sundaran v. Shaju [2011 (3) KLT 904], and accordingly, referred the matter for decision by a Division Bench. Finding disagreement with the views taken in Kalesh v. Sudheer [ 2010 (1) KLT 537] and Sundaran v. Shaju [2011 (3) KLT 904], the Division Bench referred the question of law involved in the matter, for decision by a Full Bench.

4. The short question of law for consideration is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is bound, under Rule 387 of the Rules, to examine the claimant physically to know and perceive the extent and degree of his permanent disability, before ordering examination by a Medical Board, for the assessment of the degree and extent of his permanent disability. So also, another question is involved; whether the petitioner, in a proceeding under Rule 387 of the Rules or otherwise, is always bound to make appearance personally for the assessment of his physical disability by the Tribunal.

5. At the outset itself, we would like to make it clear that Kalesh v. Sudheer [ 2010 (1) KLT 537] has no binding force as a precedent, because it is only an interim order. However, those guidelines were repeated by the same Division Bench in Sundaran v. Shaju [2011 (3) KLT 904]. This decision has binding force, and is being followed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Kerala. In Kalesh v. Sudheer [ 2010 (1) KLT 537], the Division Bench held thus:

"7. We note that practically in every case where there is a physical disability and a claim for compensation for reduction in earning capacity, there is a dispute about the extent of physical disability. The Tribunals mark the Disability Certificates without examining the author thereof. This leaves the claimant guessing as to whether he need/should examine the expert who issued the same. Invariably in such cases a contention is raised that opportunity to examine the expert is not given. Most Tribunals do not care to examine and to make a record of the physical condition of the claimant to ascertain for themselves existence and the extent of physical disability. This leads to a very unenviable situation before the superior courts.

8. We therefore suggest that in every case where there is a disability, the Tribunal must invariably (subject of course to just exceptions) direct the cl