AKHIL Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law referred to us for resolution is very short and simple, concerning the practical application of R. 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), which reads as follows:

(2.) When this Original Petition came up for hearing, a learned Single Judge of this Court doubted the correctness of the directions in Kalesh v. Sudheer, 2010 1 KerLT 537) and Sundaran v. Shaju, 2011 3 KerLT 904), and accordingly, referred the matter for decision by a Division Bench. Finding disagreement with the views taken in Kalesh v. Sudheer, 2010 1 KerLT 537)and Sundaran v. Shaju, 2011 3 KerLT 904), the Division Bench referred the question of law involved in the matter, for decision by a Full Bench.

(3.) The short question of law for consideration is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is bound, under R. 387 of the Rules, to examine the claimant physically to know and perceive the extent and degree of his permanent disability, before ordering examination by a Medical Board, for the assessment of the degree and extent of his permanent disability. So also, another question is involved; whether the petitioner, in a proceeding under R. 387 of the Rules or otherwise, is always bound to make appearance personally for the assessment of his physical disability by the Tribunal.