Jyothindranath, J.

This appeal is filed against the award dated 1.06.2011 made in O.P. (MV) No. 920/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded. The relevant facts for consideration of this appeal is as follows :

A woman aged 60 years sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.12.2008. She was a pedestrian and a motor bike bearing Reg.No.KL 11 U 1638 hit against the appellant/claimant. She was treated at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode as an inpatient for a period of ten days. She moved a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.44,401/-. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal is preferred.

2. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted before us that even though disability was assessed by the Medical Board, it was not considered by the Tribunal. It is the submission that 15% disability was assessed by the Board as she sustained a fracture on femur. It is also the submission that the compensation awarded on various heads are also very meagre and an intervention is inevitably invited.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted before us that here is a case where just compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is further highlighted that in the award itself, the Tribunal pointed out that even though there was a specific direction by the Tribunal for the appearance of the appellant/claimant, it was not complied with. The Tribunal declined to grant compensation for disability in the said circumstances.

4. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the award and documents in this case. It is seen from the award that Ext.C1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, wherein the disability is assessed as 15%. A perusal of the proceeding sheet would reveal that there was a specific direction to the appellant to be present before the Tribunal on 27.05.2011. The said order was passed on 5.5.2011. The appellant remained absent on 27.05.2011 and thereupon, evidently the Tribunal suo motu reopened the evidence and ordered that Ext.C1 shall be discarded.

5. The point to be considered is that when a claimant was referred to a medical board and the disability was got assessed and the certificate issued therefor was marked as court document, whether the Court could order to discard the evidence even before hearing the case ? The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board is not certainly binding upon the Tribunal while assessing the just compensation. The Tribunal wanted to see the appellant to satisfy itself that the disability assessed by the Board is correct. Evidently, the injured/claimant disabled the Tribunal from getting satisfied with the assessment by remaining absent. In this context, the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Akhil v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 2015 (1) KLT 291 (F.B.) assumes relevance. The Full Bench in paragraph 15 held as follows :

"There may be certain circumstances to summon the victim or the claimant before the Tribunal for verification of the alleged disability. In such circumstances, there is no bar for the Tribunal for summoning the injured/claimant invoking R.387."

Thus, it can be seen that invoking Rule 387 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, the Tribunal or Court can direct the victim or the claimant to be present before the Tribunal or court. Therefore, the direction was perfectly within the jurisdiction. Evidently, the said direction was not complied with.

6. The question is whether the failure to appear despite such a direction can be the sole reason for refusing to consider a disability certificate issued by a Medical Board and to ignore the assessment made thereunder, in toto. But surely, the order reviewing the marking of the document without giving specific reason and f