This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Claimant against the fair and decreetal order dated 26.07.2016 and made in M.C.O.P.No. 67 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai.
2. The petitioner would aver among other things that the Tribunal ought to have found that the injured claimant has suffered total disablement resulting in functional disability on account of the injuries suffered by him in his spine and the same has been proved by the wound certificate dated 09.12.2012. It is further averred that P.W.2 has spoken about the permanent and functional disability of the claimant and the same has been rejected.
3. The learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court the following finding of the Tribunal:
?kDjhuh; gFjp epue;ju ,ayhikf;fhf ,Hg;gPL ntz;Lk; vd nfl;Ls;shh;. ,J rk;ge;jkhf kUj;Jth; tprhuiz bra;ag;gl;L kDjhuUf;F Vw;gl;l Cdk;Fwpj;J rhd;WtHq;ftpy;iy. vdnt ,e;j jiyg;gpd;fPH; kDjhuUf;F ,Hg;gPL fpilf;ff;Toajpy;iy?
Pointing out the above, the learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal has granted a meagre amount of Rs.22,500/- for loss of income and if Doctor would have given Disability Certificate, the Tribunal would have granted higher amount.
4. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2016(1) TNMAC page 609 (The Branch Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Prabhu and another), wherein it has been held as follows:
''The stakeholders in this jurisdiction would get to gain immensely considering that the Claimants/victims may no longer need to seek certification from Doctors or have them examined and matters disputed and delayed based on assessment of disability. Equally, the Insurance Companies and Transport Corporations, in particular, may have their major grouse and grievance of ''Stock Witnesses? certifying disability be ruled out. Medical Board has the authority of law and is an independent body. The Medical Board is also required to assess the permanent disability based on the Central Government Circular dated 13.06.2001?.
5. On an earlier occasion, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and since the Doctor assessed disability at 80%, the order could not be passed in Lok Adalat and therefore, the matter was sent back to this Court for disposal.
6. Considering all these aspects and to meet the ends of justice, the fair and decreetal order dated 26.07.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No. 67 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to refer the appellant to the Medical Board for assessing disability and on receipt of report from the Medical Board, the Tribunal shall conduct a fresh trial and pass a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
7. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.
To,
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sivagangai.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.