1 Tnmac 106 DB

Copyright CTC Publications Pvt. Ltd.
, - Saturday, October 6, 2018

This original print was printed from CTCLibrary.com, licensed to
106 TAMIL NADU MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES 2017 (1) TN MAC
2017 (1) TN MAC 106 (DB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Rajiv Shakdher & S. Vaidyanathan, JJ.
C.M.A. No.2380 of 2015 & 428 of 2016
25.11.2016
C.M.A. No.2380 of 2015:
The Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaya Enclave, 3rd
Floor, 1057, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore …..Appellant
Vs.
Prabhu 2. A. Nataraj …..Respondents
C.M.A. No.428 of 2016:
The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kannur …..Appellant
Vs.
Rajesh 2. Narayan 3. A.N. Hareeshma …..Respondents
Motor Accident Claim
• Disability — Assessment — Reference to Medical Board — Procedure/Directions as laid
down by High Court in C.M.As.428/2016 & 2380/2015 to be followed w.e.f. 1.8.2016 —
Further directions/clarifications issued.
• Compensation — Award of — Disbursement — Direction/Procedure laid down by High
Court in C.M.As.428/2016 & 2380/2015 to be followed w.e.f. 1.8.2016 — Clarifications
issued.
DISABILITY — Assessment of — Need to follow uniform and

consistent practice and procedure in assessment — Directions issued by
Division Bench of High Court on 11.3.2016 & 12.4.2016 requiring
assessment of disability by Medical Boards in Districts following
Notification issued by Central Government — Compliance of —
Tribunals in State referred cases to Medical Boards in Districts
concerned in compliance with Directions w.e.f. 1.8.2016 — Delay in
issuance of Disability Certificates by Medical Boards — Low rate
disposal by Medical Boards, a cause of concern — Remedial measures
— Further Directions and Clarifications issued for smooth
implementation of Directions dated 12.4.2016:
(a) Dean of concerned Medical College and Superintendent of
concerned Medical Hospital to gather information from Medical
Boards regarding pendency of references on weekly basis : Statistics
of pending references to be sent on bi-monthly basis to Registrar-
High Court who in turn to place Report before Portfolio Judge for
necessary direction to Tribunal concerned.
(b) Dean/Superintendent to ensure that no reference kept pending
before Medical Board beyond 4 weeks without reason.
124 Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January 2017

Copyright CTC Publications Pvt. Ltd., - Saturday, October 6, 2018
January 2017 The Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu 107
(DB) (Rajiv Shakdher & S. Vaidyanathan, JJ.)
(c) Tribunal to scan record of each case and e-mail to Medical
Boards : Same to be treated as originals and acted upon.
(d) After assessment, Medical Board to send Disability Certificate by
e-mail to Tribunal concerned to avoid delay.
(e) Tribunal making reference to fix date of appearance of Claimant
(in his presence) before Medical Board : Such date if not convenient,
Medical Board to give a fresh date proximate in time.
Clarifications:
(a) Procedure as prescribed in C.M.As.428/2016 & 2380/2015 for
disposal of claims applicable w.e.f. 1.8.2016.
(b) Procedure also applicable to all pending and part-heard cases in
which awards to be passed after 1.8.2016 : However, where evidence
regarding disability already recorded and matter ripe for hearing,
directions would not apply.
(c) Where Witnesses produced by Claimants are credible and
Tribunal satisfied that matter not required to be referred to Medical
Board, directions would not apply.
(d) Discretion of Tribunal in that regard not taken away by
directions. (Paras 11.1 to 12, 13.2 to 15.1)
a. The Dean of the concerned Medical College and likewise the Superintendent of
the concerned Medical Hospital, will regularly, without fail, gather information,
on a weekly basis, from the concerned Medical Boards, as to the number of
references pending before them. [Para 11.1]
b. The Dean and the Superintendent will ensure that no references are kept pending
with the concerned Medical Boards for a period beyond four (4) weeks from the
date of receipt of references from the Tribunal. In case, such an eventuality
arises, the Medical Board, will articulate the reasons for the delay. If any,
information, is sought form the parties, they shall be duly intimated. [Para 11.2]
c. In order to reduce the scope of gap in getting information and material, which
would be required by the Medical Boards to carry out their functions of assessing
the extent of disability, the concerned Tribunal will scan and thereafter e-mail
the record of each case to the Medical Boards. The Medical Board will treat the
case papers received by them from the Tribunal, as originals and act upon the
same, accordingly. [Para 11.3]
d. Similarly, upon assessment being made by the Tribunal [sic Medical Board], the
Disability Certificate shall be sent, in addition via e-mail, to the concerned
Tribunal. The usual delay caused because of late receipt of a hard copy could,
thus, be avoided. [Para 11.4]
e. The Tribunal, while making references, shall ensure that a date is fixed for
appearance of the Claimant before the Medical Board. In case, the date fixed by
the Tribunal is not convenient to the Medical Board, the Medical Board will give
a fresh date, which is proximate in time to the date fixed by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal will, preferably, fix a date in the presence of the Claimant, so that the
Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January 2017 125

Claimant is made aware as to the next date of appearance before the Medical
Board. [Para 11.5]
f. The Dean and the Superintendent will send the statistics of pending references, on
a bi-monthly basis, to the Registrar (I.T. cum Statistics), High Court, Madras,
who, in turn, shall place a report before the concerned Portfolio Judge for
suitable directions to the concerned Tribunal, wherever necessary. [Para 11.6]
g. Therefore, the prayer of the Association that, since, the Medical Boards are not
upto the task assigned to them, the Tribunal should resort to the old procedure, in
our view, should be met with directions issued by us. Thus, no such direction, as
sought for by the Association, can be grated for the present. [Para 12]
h. In so far as the pending and part-heard cases, where evidence with regard to
Permanent Disability has already been recorded, and the matter is otherwise ripe
for hearing, the direction issued for referring the matter to the Medical Board
would not apply. [Para 13.2]
i. Furthermore, the suggestions made by the learned Advocate General, as recorded
by us in Paragraph 9.1, are also accepted. [Para 13.3]
j. Accordingly, Medical Boards will convene at least two times a week. The
Disability Certificates will be issued without fail within four (4) weeks from the
date of receipt of reference from the Tribunals. Complicated cases will be
referred to the nearest Hospital/College having multi-speciality facility. The
Medical Board, while referring the matter, will articulate the area of concern.
The reference will be accompanied with all relevant papers. The Claimant will
be communicated the date on which his/her/its presence, if at all, is required. In
case any additional Documents/Reports are required, necessary information will
be given in writing, with a copy marked to the opposing party and/or the
concerned Counsel. [Para 13.4]
k. Before we conclude, we may also make it clear that the directions contained, in
the two Judgments of this Court, were issued, keeping in mind the best interests
of the parties at hand. While the concern of the Court was to do away with the
situation, which was rampant, i.e., the production of Doctors, who were Stock
Witnesses, for the purpose of placing evidence on record with regard to the
disability suffered, the Court was also concerned that the Compensation awarded
by the Tribunals, should reach the beneficiaries directly, keeping in mind, that
none of the procedures it chose to prescribe should operate in a manner, which
would either create a logjam or, delay the adjudication of claims. [Para 14]
l. Therefore, while directions have been issued to the Tribunals to refer the matter to
the Medical Boards, the Tribunals, will bear in mind, that, if the Witnesses
produced by the Claimants are credible and the Presiding Officers are satisfied
that the matter ought not to be referred to the Medical Boards, then they should
proceed in the matter based on the appreciation of the material placed before
them. [Para 15]
m. We make it clear that the directions issued by the Court did not take away the
discretion of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, in that regard. [Para 15.1]
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM — Compensation — Award of —
Disbursement — Procedure as laid down by High Court in C.M.As.
428/2016 & 2380/2015 — Application of — Clarification —
Procedure/Directions to apply to all pending and part-heard cases
where award to be passed after 1.8.2016 — Procedure to also apply to

all directions issued by Tribunal for deposit of part of Award amount in
all pending/part-heard cases as on 1.8.2016 — Whole purpose is that
Compensation as awarded by Tribunal reaches beneficiaries directly —
Exception — Cases, where awards passed prior to 1.8.2016, procedure
of issuing crossed Cheques in favour of Claimant as in force prior to
said date, to operate. (Paras 3, 13, 13.1 & 14)
M.B. Raghavan, Advocate for Petitioner.
R. Muthu Kumarasamy, Advocate General assisted by P.O. Adikesavalu for Medical
Board; T.V. Krishnakumar & K.A. Venkatesan for Law Associates, Advocates for
Respondents.
Finding — Clarificatory directions issued — Matter disposed of.
Prayer : C.M.A. No.2380 of 2015: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals preferred against the Order of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, dated 17.7.2014 and
made in MCOP No.980 of 2011.
C.M.A. No.428 of 2016: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals preferred against the Order of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal Court of the Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge), Senior Division, Mahe Court dated
8.4.2015 and made in MCOP No.10 of 2013.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher & S. Vaidyanathan, JJ.
1. Based on the Note dated 29.8.2016 prepared by the Registry, the
matter came to be placed before this Bench, after it was duly actioned by the
Hon’ble the Chief Justice on the very same date, i.e. 29.8.2016.
1.1. By virtue of the Order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, this Bench
was called upon to examine the validity, sustainability and scope of two
communications. The first communication was that of the Law Association
(in short Association), which is dated 23.8.2016. The second communication
was that of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram District, Villupuram,
dated 19.8.2016.
2. The Association as well as the learned Principal District Judge, in effect,
sought clarifications qua the Judgments dated 11.3.2016 and 12.4.2016,
passed in C.M.A. Nos.428 of 2016 [Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd., Kannur v. Rajesh and others, 2016 (1) TN MAC 433] and 2380 of
2015 [The Branch Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Coimbatore v. Prabhu and another, 2016 (1) TN MAC 609], respectively,
by a Division Bench, comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar (as he
then was) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan.
2.1. Pertinently, scope for such an exercise was left open by the Division
Bench in order to ensure a seamless implementation of its directions
contained in its aforementioned Judgments.
2.2. The Association, in its communication, dated 23.8.2016, sought, in a
sense, a stay on the operation of the direction contained in the two

Judgments, to the extent it required the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in
short Tribunal), to refer the cases to the Medical Board, for ascertaining the
extent of the disability suffered by the victim.
2.3. It is contended that the said direction should be kept in abeyance, till
such time sufficient Medical Boards were constituted.
2.4. The argument being that the disposal of claims had slowed down on
account of slow pace of expert input by the Medical Board.
3. In so far as the Principal District Judge is concerned, he has sought
several clarifications, which, essentially, relate to the applicability of the
directions contained in the Judgments passed by this Court to pending and
fresh cases. For the sake of convenience, the clarifications sought are set
forth hereafter :
“(i) Whether the same procedure shall be followed while issuing Cheques for the
award passed already (before 1.8.2016) in MCOP cases or whether the old
method shall be followed.
(ii) Whether the same shall be followed while depositing the award amount for
the Orders passed previously (before 1.8.2016) or whether the old method shall
be followed.
(ii) Whether the procedure contemplated in the Judgment under first reference
shall be followed for the pending and part-heard cases prior to 1.8.2016 or
whether the old method shall be followed.
(iv) Under which procedure shall be followed while depositing the 50% of
Award amount for the pending and part-heard cases prior to 1.8.2016 and also
for the new cases filed after 1.8.2016.
(v) In the case of medical examination of the Claimant in pending and part-heard
cases (prior to 1.8.2016), whether the Circular under second reference shall be
followed or whether the old method shall be followed…”
4. Given the concerns of the Association and the Principal District Judge,
we had, at the hearing held on 15.9.2016, called upon the learned Advocate
General to assist us in the matter. The concern of the Association that the
Medical Boards had not been constituted in every District was set out in the
Order passed on that date.
4.1. At the next date of hearing, i.e., on 30.9.2016, learned Advocate
General put before us broad statistics, which were suggestive of fact that,
Medical Boards were available, both, in the Medical Colleges located in the
State of Tamil Nadu as well as in the District Headquarters.
4.2. Thus, having regard to the submissions made before us by the
learned Advocate General on 30.9.2016, we directed him to supply us the
statistics and/or information as to the exact number of references made by
the Tribunals, as on 30.9.2016. The Registry of this Court was also directed

to gather statistics and/or information as to the number of references made
by the Tribunals to the Medical Boards, which were pending consideration,
as on 30.9.2016.
5. When the matter was again called on 1.11.2016, the learned Advocate
General placed before us a communication dated 26.10.2016, addressed to
him by the Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and
Family Welfare Department (in short HFWD).
5.1. The information put before us was suggestive of the fact that, till
30.9.2016, in the 22 Medical Colleges, adverted to in the annexure appended
to the communication, 625 cases had been referred by the Tribunals to the
concerned Medical Boards. Out of which, the concerned Medical Boards,
between 1.8.2016 and 30.9.2016, had issued Disability Certificates, only in
47 cases.
5.2. The situation, vis-à-vis the Medical Boards constituted by
Government Medical College Hospitals and District Headquarters
Hospitals, was no better. In so far as these institutions are concerned, the
Tribunals, apparently, had made 519 references, out of which, Certificates
had been issued by the concerned Medical Boards, between 1.8.2016 and
30.9.2016, only, in 84 cases.
6. As regards the Registry of this Court is concerned, it has reported that
in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Tribunals, as on 30.9.2016, had made 2347
references to various Medical Boards, while in the Union territory of
Puducherry, as on 30.9.2016, 7 references have been made taking the total to
2354 references.
7. The date received from the two sources reveals that there is a wide
variation in the number of references made by the Tribunals to vrious
Medical Boards.
8. to be noted, the aforementioned Communication dated 26.10.2016
gives the following reasons for the delay in the issuance of Disability
Certificates by the concerned Medical Boards. The said Communication,
notably, also alludes to the suggestions for removal of the difficulties faced
by Medical Boards in disposal of cases.
9. For the sake of convenience, we intend to extract what the HFWD,
perceives as reasons for the delay in the issuance of Medical Certificates as
also their suggestions for overcoming the said difficulties.
Reasons for delay as per HFWD:
(i) The Claimants are not attending the Medical Board on the day
specified.
(ii) The address of the Claimants provided is not correct.
(iii) The Claimants fail to bring the necessary documents.

(iv) The Claimants are referred to undergo certain Medical Test (such as
X-ray, Scan) to find out the accurate percentage of disability.
(v) The accident cases referred by the Tribunal might have taken place
long before, hence it takes time to determine the disability in such cases.
Suggestions of HFWD for improvement:
(i) If the number of cases are high, one or two or more special Medical
Board for MCOP may be conducted biweekly.
(ii) With regard to MCOP cases, Certificate will be issued within a
maximum of four weeks.
(iii) Complicated cases may be referred to nearby Hospital/College where
multi-specialists are available.
(iv) Phone/Mobile Number of the individual (victim) shall be mentioned
for speedy communication/disposal.
(v) The victims may be informed in the Call Letter to bring the
documents viz., Accident Register copy, Wound Certificate, Discharge
Summary, old and present (latest) X-rays and any other document
relating to the injury.”
10. Having regard to the fact that there is obviously a low rate disposal by
the concerned Medical Boards, which, to our mind, is a cause for concern
and could lead to a situation, where the remedy envisaged by this Court
(because of clogging in the adjudication of claims made), may become
worse than the malady, we had put to the learned Advocate General, whether
a Point Man could be appointed, qua each of the Medical Boards, who
could, then, ensure a quick and a comprehensive disposal of matters by the
concerned Medical Board.
10.1. The learned Advocate General suggested that, the Dean of the
Medical College and the Superintendent of the concerned Government
Hospital can act as a point person, who would, on a monthly basis, gather
information with regard to the pending references and issue suitable
directions for expedition.
10.2. This apart, we were also informed that the Tribunals are taking time
in making references to the concerned Medical Boards, despite Memos, to
that effect, being filed by the parties.
11. Having heard the learned Advocate General and the Counsel
appearing for the Association as well as those, who appeared for the
Insurance Companies, we are inclined to issue the following directions for
the smooth implementation of the directions contained in the Judgments
dated 11.3.2016 and 12.4.2016.
11.1. The Dean of the concerned Medical College and likewise the
Superintendent of the concerned Medical Hospital, will regularly, without

fail, gather information, on a weekly basis, from the concerned Medical
Boards, as to the number of references pending before them.
11.2. The Dean and the Superintendent will ensure that no references are
kept pending with the concerned Medical Boards for a period beyond four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of references from the Tribunal. In case, such an
eventuality arises, the Medical Board, will articulate the reasons for the delay. If
any, information, is sought form the parties, they shall be duly intimated.
11.3. In order to reduce the scope of gap in getting information and
material, which would be required by the Medical Boards to carry out their
functions of assessing the extent of disability, the concerned Tribunal will
scan and thereafter e-mail the record of each case to the Medical Boards.
The Medical Board will treat the case papers received by them from the
Tribunal, as originals and act upon the same, accordingly.
11.4. Similarly, upon assessment being made by the Tribunal [sic
Medical Board], the Disability Certificate shall be sent, in addition via e-
mail, to the concerned Tribunal. The usual delay caused because of late
receipt of a hard copy could, thus, be avoided.
11.5. The Tribunal, while making references, shall ensure that a date is
fixed for appearance of the Claimant before the Medical Board. In case, the
date fixed by the Tribunal is not convenient to the Medical Board, the
Medical Board will give a fresh date, which is proximate in time to the date
fixed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will, preferably, fix a date in the
presence of the Claimant, so that the Claimant is made aware as to the next
date of appearance before the Medical Board.
11.6. The Dean and the Superintendent will send the statistics of pending
references, on a bi-monthly basis, to the Registrar (I.T. cum Statistics), High
Court, Madras, who, in turn, shall place a Report before the concerned Portfolio
Judge for suitable directions to the concerned Tribunal, wherever necessary.
12. Therefore, the prayer of the Association that, since, the Medical Boards
are not upto the task assigned to them, the Tribunal should resort to the old
procedure, in our view, should be met with directions issued by us. Thus, no
such direction, as sought for by the Association, can be grated for the present.
13. As regards the clarifications, which are sought by the learned Principal
District Judge, in our view, the Judgments of this Court, are quite clear. The
procedure prescribed therein for disposal of claims is required to be applied
with effect from 1.8.2016. In all cases, where Awards have been passed prior
to 1.8.2016, the procedure in force, for issuance of Crossed Cheques in favour
of Claimant, prior to the said date shall operate. This would take care, to our
mind, Query Nos.(i) & (ii) referred to in Paragraph 3 above.
13.1. As regards pending and part-heard cases, since Tribunals would
pass Awards after 1.8.2016, the procedure prescribed in the two Judgments
of the High Court would have to be followed. This would also apply to any
2017 (1) Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January - 8 131

direction that the Tribunal may issue for deposit of a part of the amount in
respect of those cases, which are pending and part-heard as on 1.8.2016.
This clarification, to our mind, would take care of Query Nos.(iii) to (v)
referred to in Paragraph 3 above.
13.2. In so far as the pending and part-heard cases, where evidence with
regard to Permanent Disability has already been recorded, and the matter is
otherwise ripe for hearing, the direction issued for referring the matter to the
Medical Board would not apply.
13.3. Furthermore, the suggestions made by the learned Advocate
General, as recorded by us in Paragraph 9.1, are also accepted.
13.4. Accordingly, Medical Boards will convene at least two times a
week. The Disability Certificates will be issued without fail within four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of reference from the Tribunals. Complicated
cases will be referred to the nearest Hospital/College having multi-speciality
facility. The Medical Board, while referring the matter, will articulate the
area of concern. The reference will be accompanied with all relevant papers.
The Claimant will be communicated the date on which his/her/its presence,
if at all, is required. In case any additional Documents/Reports are required,
necessary information will be given in writing, with a copy marked to the
opposing party and/or the concerned Counsel.
14. Before we conclude, we may also make it clear that the directions
contained, in the two Judgments of this Court, were issued, keeping in mind
the best interests of the parties at hand. While the concern of the Court was
to do away with the situation, which was rampant, i.e., the production of
Doctors, who were Stock Witnesses, for the purpose of placing evidence on
record with regard to the disability suffered, the Court was also concerned
that the Compensation awarded by the Tribunals, should reach the
beneficiaries directly, keeping in mind, that none of the procedures it chose
to prescribe should operate in a manner, which would either create a logjam
or, delay the adjudication of claims.
15. Therefore, while directions have been issued to the Tribunals to refer
the matter to the Medical Boards, the Tribunals, will bear in mind, that, if the
Witnesses produced by the Claimants are credible and the Presiding Officers
are satisfied that the matter ought not to be referred to the Medical Boards,
then they should proceed in the matter based on the appreciation of the
material placed before them.
15.1. We make it clear that the directions issued by the Court did not take
away the discretion of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, in that regard.
16. To our mind, no further clarificatory directions are called for to be
issued, for the moment. The matter is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

1 Tnmac 106 DB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Tnmac 106 DB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright CTC Publications Pvt. Ltd.

, - Saturday, October 6, 2018

106 TAMIL NADU MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES 2017 (1) TN MAC

2017 (1) TN MAC 106 (DB)

DISABILITY — Assessment of — Need to follow uniform and

124 Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January 2017

Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January 2017 125

108 TAMIL NADU MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES 2017 (1) TN MAC

126 Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January 2017

Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January 2017 127

110 TAMIL NADU MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES 2017 (1) TN MAC

128 Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January 2017

Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January 2017 129

112 TAMIL NADU MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES 2017 (1) TN MAC

130 Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January 2017

2017 (1) Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January - 8 131

114 TAMIL NADU MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES 2017 (1) TN MAC

132 Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases /January 2017

You might also like