MINI P K Vs. ABDUL NAZAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the claimant in OP (MV) No. 1966 of 2006 on the file of the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by Ext. P3 order whereby the petition filed under R.387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') was dismissed. The petitioner who claimed to have sustained injuries in a motor accident occurred on 30/08/2006 filed the above claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext. P1 and other medical reports were produced along with the claim petition. Ext. P1 would reveal that she had sustained fractures on L1 and L2, fracture on coccyx, fracture lateral end of clavicle right, abrasions shoulder right, wrist 2 x 2 cm, occipital region, soft tissue injury. The claim of the petitioner is that she has incurred permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident. Therefore, the petitioner has filed Ext. P2 application under R.387 of the Motor Vehicles Rules with a prayer to refer her to a Medical Board for assessing the percentage of disability. According to the petitioner, she has produced all the necessary documents along with the claim petition. In the said circumstances she has not elaborately explained all matters in Ext. P2. As per Ext. P3 the said application was dismissed as hereunder:

(2.) Whether the order in Ext. P3 dismissing Ext. P2 petition filed under R.387 of the Rules carrying the prayer to refer the petitioner to the Medical Board for assessing her disability in the above manner can be said to be a proper exercise of power under the said rule is the question that arises for consideration. R.387 of Motor Vehicles Rules reads thus:

(3.) In the context of the case it is also apposite to refer to R.168 of the Rules. While dealing with a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act a Claims Tribunal has to consider what appear to it to be 'just compensation' on the facts and circumstances of the case. In short, while dealing with an application under R.387 of the Rules if the Tribunal fails to apply the mind to all the relevant aspects that would definitely disable the Tribunal from assessing a 'just compensation'. In that view of the matter any decision on an application under R.387 of the Rules without any application of mind cannot be said to be a true exercise of power.