The Tribunal must assess evidence proactively in disability claims, regardless of the absence of the certifying doctor.

JUDGMENT

The claimant in O.P.(MV) No.2506 of 2013 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, has instituted this appeal seeking to challenge the findings in the award dated 04.02.2020.

2. Heard Sri.C.Harikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri.A.R.George, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

3. The issue arising for consideration in this appeal is as regards the findings in paragraph 12 of the award with reference to the observations made by the Tribunal on the acceptability or otherwise of Ext.A13 disability certificate. It is not in dispute that the disability certificate had assessed the permanent physical disability of the claimant at 15%. True, the afore certificate is issued by an individual doctor, who was not examined before the Tribunal, and the certificate was marked subject to proof. On the afore basis, the Tribunal found that no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the certificate at Ext.A13. It is the finding to that effect and the ultimate award of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards continuing permanent disability, which is being challenged in this appeal.

4. The learned counsel, Sri.Harikumar, would place reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court inJoby George v. Siby Valloran [ 2024 (5) KHC 170], wherein almost similar circumstances, where the Tribunal rejected the disability certificate issued by an individual doctor merely for the reason that the doctor was not examined by the claimant, this Court, after referring to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, and Rules thereunder, as well as the Government Orders issued under Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989, held that the Tribunal cannot stay as a mute spectator but has to adopt a proactive role in the decision-making process, even if the doctor who issued the certificate is not being examined. The learned Single Judge of this Court has also made reference to the Division Bench dictum inKarunakaran @ Kannan v. Abdul Rasheed and Others [2015 (5) KHC 355] , and accepted the quantification of the disability and granted the disability as quantified in that case. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the appellant is also entitled to succeed in the case at hand. In the light of the afore, the compensation due to the claimant under the head ‘permanent disability’ requires to be calculated with reference to notional income at Rs.25,000/- as adopted by the Tribunal while granting compensation under the head ‘loss of earnings’.

5. This Court further notices that the nature of the injury has been recorded in paragraph 10 of the award with specific reference to Ext.X1, wherein it is noted that the claimant sustained a serious injury - dislocation of the left hip. On the totality of the facts and circumstances as borne out of the award as well as the disability certificate at Ext.A13, I am of the opinion that the permanent disability of the claimant requires to be fixed at 10%. To that extent, the award of the Tribunal is modified. This Court further notices that with reference to the age of the claimant, the multiplier to be applied is 14. In such circumstances, the appellant would be entitled to an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- (25,000x12x14x10%) under the head ‘permanent disability’. However, after reducing the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant would be entitled to an amount of Rs.3,20,000/-.

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, by modifying the impugned award, entitling the appellant to get an additional amount of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand only), along with the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal, to be paid by the re