IMPORTANT POINT
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal must give due weight to the assessments made by Medical Boards regarding disability and cannot independently alter these assessments without compelling justification.

JUDGMENT :

1. The question raised before this Court is whether the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal can fix the percentage of disability on its own when the report of the Medical Board is placed before it?

2. The claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Alappuzha is the appellant herein. On 26.01.2013 at around 9.30 a.m. at Polikode Valakom, Kottarakkara, an accident took place out of use of a Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. KL-33/C-3861. When the claimant reached this spot the offending vehicle bearing registration No. KL-01/AX-8111 hit the vehicle of the claimant and she sustained serious injuries. Hence, the claim petition was lodged before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Alappuzha. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II on the basis of the evidence of materials on record framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the motor accident causing injuries to the petitioner was due to the negligent driving of respondent no. 2?

2. Is the petitioner entitled to recover compensation from the respondents jointly and severally?

3. If so, what should be the quantum?”

3. On behalf of the claimant, Exts.A1 to A20 and X1 were marked and PW1 and PW2 were examined. Ext.X1 is the Disability Certificate marked as court exhibit. On the basis of the materials on record and evidence produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the claimant suffered the following injuries:

“10. The petitioner proved the nature of injuries and treatment of the petitioner through Exts.A3, A7 series, A9, A13, A15, A16, A19, A20 and X1 medical records issued from Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Thiruvananthapuram, T.D Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha and Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. She had sustained the following injuries:

1. Lacerated wound (+) over ® leg.

2. Abrasion (+) forehead.

3. Lacerated wound over chin.

4. Bilateral Subdural haemorrhage.

5. Bilateral frontal contusion.

6. Bilateral subarechnoid haemorrhage.”

4. The claimant was treated for these injuries for twenty-eight (28) days. On the basis of the materials on record, the Tribunal granted compensation as detailed in paragraph No. 22 of the Award which reads as follows:

5. I have heard Smt.V.Shylaja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and Sri.Rajan V. Kaliyath, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended on the fixation of the disability at 35% by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the original disability fixed under Ext.A9 was 88%. However, the Insurance Company disputed the same and the claimant was referred to the Medical Board. The Medical Board by Ext.X1 Certificate found that the total disability suffered by the claimant is 79%. Out of the same, 40% was visual disability. At the time of the accident, the appellant was the Manager of M/s. Muthoot Finance and she had to discontinue the job after a few years after the accident. Still further the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was on loss of pay leave which fact is proved by ex