THERI KARIKUTTY Vs. K. HAMZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P. (MV).No.1197/2002. The first appellant was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL -10M 2040 from Kondotty to Kolathur. When the autorickshaw reached Kondotty, a lorry bearing Reg.No.PY -03 -2394 driven by the first respondent came from the opposite direction and hit against the autorickshaw. Consequently, the first appellant sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately taken to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. He had different spells of hospitalisation in connection with the treatment and altogether, he had been an inpatient for a period of 72 days. He filed the above mentioned claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ -. Pending the claim petition before the Tribunal, the wife of the first appellant viz., the second appellant herein filed I.A.Nos.824/2006 and 825/2006 in representative capacity to implead her as next friend on the ground that as a result of the accident, the first appellant became mentally disordered and bed ridden. Evidently, the said interlocutory applications were allowed. In fact, there was no legal requirement to permit the second appellant to get impleaded in her individual capacity and on satisfying the prayer, she ought to have been permitted only to represent the first appellant as his next friend. Both the sides did not adduce any oral evidence before the Tribunal. On the side of the appellant, Exts.A1 to A11 were got marked. On the side of the respondents, copy of the charge sheet filed in the crime registered in connection with the aforesaid accident was got marked as Ext.B1 and Ext.X1 is the disability certificate in respect of the first appellant -petitioner. The Tribunal considered the documentary evidence consisting of Exts.A1 to A11, Ext.B1 and Ext.X1 and the rival contentions and passed the impugned award granting a total compensation of Rs.2,39,341/ - with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. It is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and seeking for its enhancement that the captioned appeal has been preferred.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the third respondent and the learned counsel for the sixth respondent. On 19.2.2016, this Court passed an order dispensing with notice to respondents 1 and 2. Though notice was served on respondents 4 and 5, they have not chosen to enter appearance and contest the matter.

(3.) In this appeal, second appellant has filed I.A.No.939/2016 with the prayer to refer the first appellant before the District Medical Board, Medical College Hospital, Manjeri for assessing the disability sustained by him. In this context, it is to be noted that earlier, pursuant to an order passed by the Tribunal, the first appellant appeared before the District Medical Board and his permanent disability was assessed. Virtually, the aforementioned I.A is now, filed seeking to refer the first appellant before the same board. We are of the view that if the appellants were dissatisfied with the assessment made by the District Medical board pursuant to which Ext.X1 disability certificate was issued and if they are doubting the correctness of the assessment made by the District Medical Board thereunder, an application for referring the first appellant before the State Board for assessing disability ought to have been filed before the Tribunal. Evidently, this appeal has been preferred in the year 2007.