Bhaktipada Das @ Bhakti Das vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

This revisional application arose out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which has been directed assailing order No. 86 dated February 02, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 5th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 366 of 2008.

The matter is taken up for hearing in presence of Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned Advocate for the petitioner/claimant and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Advocate for the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

The backdrops of this case are as follows :- a) Alleging one road traffic accident occurred on June 20, 2007 at the place under Police Station - Debra, District - Paschim Medinipur and F.I.R. No. 81 dated June 20, 2007 was registered at the instance of the wife of the alleged road traffic accidental victim Bhaktipada Das, he being the petitioner of this revisional application.

b) The copy of F.I.R. as shown by Mr. Banik, which has also been returned back shows that said Bhaktipada Das, being a Van Rickshaw-puller had been met with the road traffic accident.

c) During course of evidence a good number of documents have been exhibited of which one original disability certificate of the petitioner was marked as Ext. 4.

d) On the side of the petitioner he himself as PW-1 and his mother as PW-2 were examined and crossexamined in full to the satisfaction of the parties.

e) At that juncture further evidence was to be adduced on the side of the petitioner when one application was filed before the learned Tribunal seeking direction so that the petitioner would be again placed before the concerned Disability Board of Medinipur Medical College and Hospital for re-examining and to issue disability certificate afresh since according to the petitioner, he has been disputing the note of the erstwhile Medical Board as is appearing as "congenital Equinous Deformity" meaning thereby the deformity which was allegedly found by the said Medical Board was by birth.

Mr. Banik submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the requirement of re-examination of the disabled person, who has sought for compensation award on account of his disability on his person as a result of road traffic accident. He submitted further as a fallacy of course that there may not be any harm if the petitioner would be allowed to appear before the Medical Board for re-examination afresh, since the deformity as a consequence of the said road traffic accident might have been disappeared, or, may not appear, therefore, the prayer should not be disallowed to make an attempt to bring out the truth.

Mr. Das submitted that at this stage the instant application is not maintainable since examination and cross-examination to two witnesses were already

completed.

Now taking the fallacy at the very out set as pointed out by Mr. Banik if it is assumed that by re-examining at the stage the claim of deformity might have been disappeared, or, may not appear even by re-examination, then what would be the purpose actually for submitting prayer for re-examining the petitioner by the Medical Board?

From the materials on record it reveals that the injuries which are claimed to have been sustained on road accident had appeared on right ankle, knee, hip joint and some other parts of the body. The alleged road traffic accident took place on June 20, 2007, however, the petitioner apart from submitting a medical certification dated July 10, 2015 (i.e. a certification obtained from one Orthopaedic Surgeon, after about 8 years, of the accident) showing disablement in the right ankle produced also some other medical papers in support of his claim case proposing compensation award under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Claims Act.

This Court is not shy of to lay observation that to prove such a claim case of disablement to the tune of 40%, the disablement certificate cannot be the sole and only document. The same may be one of the other corroborative evidence, reliability of which, or, either of which, is subject to acceptability by the Tribunal during final adjudication of the claim case. But when two witnesses including the petitioner and her mother who

have disclosed about the injuries and disabilities and they have been examined in full by the opposite party covering also the disputed part then allowing of the impugned petition, if it is done in the name of interest of justice, it would obviously cause prejudice to the defence opposite party who might have accrued some materials by way of cross-examination which should not be allowed to be destroyed.

The concept of ends of justice cannot be one sided. Obviously the claimant within the precinct of beneficial legislation like Motor Vehicles Act is entitled to get compensation award subject to proof of the required elements which are not required to be proved very strictly following the rules laid down under Evidence Act. But that does not mean that the other concept of norms and usual rules of evidence rendering the concept of ends of justice should be allowed to frustrate by entertaining any application like the instant one.

The impugned certificate dated April 20, 2010 was issued not by irresponsible persons, rather it was issued under signature of the Medical Superintendent-cumPrincipal and Chairman of the Medical Board, Medinipur Medical College and Hospital, being assisted by the other medical experts of some other wings. Therefore, as Mr. Banik tried to impress upon that in hot haste the note "congenital equinous deformity", which was not in reality cannot be accepted to allow any second examination of the petitioner by second Medical Board after lapse of some years. On other count if it is done pursuant to the

submission of Mr. Banik then there would be second certificate of the Medical Board. Then it might create very much difficult on the part of the claims Tribunal as to which would be accepted whether the earlier or the later one.

In view of the above observations and by no stretch of imagination since I failed to accept either fallacy or the logic of the points of criticism raised by Mr. Banik against the order impugned I find no merit in the revisional application, rather the claim case should be allowed to proceed for disposal in accordance with law by the learned Claims Tribunal with the substantive evidence as would have been adduced or could be adduced through evidence if the stage has not been concluded by this time.

Thus, affirming the order No. 86 dated February 02, 2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 5th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 366 of 2008, C.O. 739 of 2016 stands disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.