IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that disability certificates issued by qualified medical professionals must be considered valid, and the Tribunal has a proactive role in assessing claims for compensation in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

(V.G. Arun, J.)

The appellant sustained the following injuries in a road traffic accident on 11/10/2013 :-

i) Abrasion forehead and bridge of nose

ii) Comminuted displaced segmental fracture both bones left leg

iii) Blunt injury abdomen

iv) Fracture dislocation acetabulam (R)

v) Fracture T6 and T12

2. At the time of accident, the appellant was an interior decoration works contractor. According to the appellant, his monthly salary was Rs.35,000/-. He, therefore, filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking Rs.24,98,000/- as compensation, which was limited to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only). By the impugned award, the Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.3,47,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal committed gross illegality in taking the appellant's monthly income as Rs.10,000/-.

4. The other ground of challenge is against the unilateral reduction of the percentage of disability from 21% to 12% despite production of Ext.A10 disability certificate. The computation of loss of income for only four months, when compared to the gravity of the injuries sustained and the prolonged treatment is contended to be meagre.

5. Learned Counsel for the insurance company contended that the disability certificate having been issued by a doctor, who had not treated the appellant and Ext.A10 having not been proved by examining the doctor, the Tribunal was justified in discarding Ext.A10 and fixing the percentage of disability on its own. According to the Counsel, just and proper compensation having been granted by the Tribunal, the impugned award warrants no interference. Finally, it is submitted that there being a delay of 931 days in filing the appeal, interest for that period should be excluded, if at all the compensation is enhanced.

6. As far as the challenge against fixation of notional income is concerned, it is to be noted that the appellant had not produced any proof to prove his income being Rs.35,000/- per month at the time of accident. In such circumstances, the option available to the Tribunal was to assess the notional income. This could have been done following the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236]. In such event, the notional income would be Rs.9,000/- per month. As the Tribunal has taken the appellant's income to be Rs.10,000/-, the said finding warrants no interference.

7. With respect to the challenge against reduction of the percentage of disability, Ext.A10 certificate was issued after the doctor examining the appellant, perusing the wound certificate, discharge summary and treatment certificate. It is clearly stated in Ext.A10 that the findings were entered after examining the appellant clinically as well as radiologically. In Dileep Antony v. Shobin Sebastian and Others [2022 (6) KHC 105], a learned Single Judge of this Court referred to G.O(P) No.161/97/H&FWD dated 15.05.1997 containing the revised orders/guidelines for issuing disability certificates for production before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Workmen's Compensation Courts etc., and held that the guidelines are to be followed by Tribunals. As per the G.O(P) No.161/97/H&FWD, the disability certificates are to be issued by a specialist doctor (Government or Private) with not less than 10 years standing in the speciality and 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. The Government Order also requires appeals/ second opinion in the case of such certificates to be referred to the State Disability Assessment Board.

8. Apart from the Government Order discussed above, Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 ('the KMV Rules' for short) confers the Tribunal with the power to direct any Medical Officer in a Government hosp