Madras High Court
The Chief Executive Claim Officer vs Wajidbasha on 12 September, 2024
C.R.P.No.3352 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.09.2024
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P. No.3352 of 2024
and
CMP.No.17997 of 2024
The Chief Executive Claim Officer,
M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Old No.276 & 277, New No.497, 498,
Isanakatima Building, 5th Floor,
Poonamallee High Road,
Opposite to Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board Building,
Arumpakkam,
Chennai – 106. ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Wajidbasha ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge) at Gingee in I.A.No.2615
of 2022 in MCOP.No.292 of 2016.
For Petitioner : Ms.V.Vikma for
Mr.Michael Visuvasam
For Respondent : Mr.M.Santhanaraman
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 10
C.R.P.No.3352 of 2024
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge at Gingee in I.A.No.2615 of
2022 in MCOP.No.292 of 2016 dated 08.06.2023.
2. The civil revision petitioner is the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Limited. The respondent is the claimant.
3. The claimant approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at
Gingee seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. According to the claimant, he
was riding pillion in a bike on Tirupathur to Tiruvannamalai Main Road. When
they reached Nagarajanpatti Cross Road, an auto which was travelling in the
same direction dashed against the bike. This accident resulted in the claimant
suffering multiple injuries. Hence, he was admitted to Christian Medical
College at Vellore. According to the claimant, the accident took place only due
to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the auto. The civil revision
petitioner is the insurer of the said vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 of 10
4. During the course of trial, the claimant was examined by Department
of Psychiatry, Government Villupuram Medical College and Hospital at
Villupuram. They issued a certificate stating that he is suffering from 70%
mental impairment. It was also certified that the certificate will be valid for a
period of five years. In addition, the claimant was also certified as suffering
from 70% disability by the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer on
06.08.2019. Both these documents have been exhibited before the Court as
Ex.P4.
5. Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The
Branch Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Prabhu and
another, 2016 1 TNMAC 609 (DB), the learned Claims Tribunal referred the
claimant for examination by the medical board. The medical board also
examined the claimant and confirmed the findings that had been returned by
the Professor of Psychiatry, Government Villupuram Medical College and
Hospital as well as the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer at
Villupuram. They gave a certificate that the claimant is suffering from 70%
disability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 of 10
6. An application was taken out by the civil revision petitioner/insurer
before the learned Tribunal at Gingee in I.A.No. 2615 of 2022 in order to
examine the Chairman, Medical Board, Chengalpet Medical College and
Hospital, Chengalpet who had issued the certificate for the purpose of deposing
on the contents of the document.
7. The claimant, taking into consideration the fact that the matter is being
prolonged, tendered no objection to the said application. Despite the fact that
the claimant has no objection, the learned Tribunal as the name of the Doctor
had not been mentioned in the summon, went on to dismiss the application.
Hence, this revision.
8. Ms.V.Vikma representing Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam for the
claimant/civil revision petitioner and Mr.M.Santhanaraman for the insurer/
respondent.
9. The narration of the aforesaid facts would go to show that the two
authorities namely the Professor of Psychiatry, Government Medical College,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 of 10
Villupuram as well as the Chairman, Medical Board, Chengalpet Medical
College have certified that the claimant is suffering from 70% disability. In the
normal course of events, a certificate of disability issued by the medical board
should be received as evidence. However, the Division Bench itself in
paragraph 23 (vi) had stated that in an exceptional cases, at request of the
contesting parties, the Tribunal has the power to summon the author of the
certificate of disability to appear before the court and to depose in this regard.
10. Ms.Vikma would submit that the medical certificate though states the
disability of the claimant as 70%, the reasons on the basis of which they have
arrived has not been stated. She would plead that unless and until the reasons
are stated, the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the certificate as it is. It is
only for that purpose that they had taken out an application.
11. When the matter came up for admission, I had requested the learned
counsel for the civil revision petitioner to serve notice on the respondent. The
respondent has been served and Mr.M.Santhanaraman represents the claimant.
12. Mr.M.Santhanaraman would submit that the matter has been pending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 of 10
from the year 2016. He adds the petitioner, who has been suffering from mental
disabilities on account of the accident, due to the pendency has been subjected
to irreparable loss and prejudice. In order to ensure that the insurance company
does not drag on the proceedings, the claimant had tendered “no objection” for
the application to be allowed. He would draw my attention to Ex.P4 and state
that the three authorities have found that he is suffering from 70% disability
namely Professor of Psychiatry in Villupuram, District Differently Abled
Welfare Officer as well as the Medical Board, Chengalpet. He would state that
he has no objection for the insurance company to summon the author of the
document. But he would state that entire proceedings to be completed within a
particular date.
13. I have carefully considered the submissions of the parties and gone
through the records.
14. This court had evolved the concept of examining the claimant on the
percentage of disability and the judgment cited supra. Even in the said
judgment, it was made clear that in case the parties to the claim petition dispute
the certificate, it is open to the court to summon the author of the document. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 of 10
the present case, the medical certificate that has been tendered is at the instance
of the Chairman, Chengalpet Medical College and Hospital, Chengalpet. The
name of the person, who examined the claimant, will not be within the
knowledge of the insurance company. This is because the examination of the
claimant took place in the absence of a representative of the insurance
company.
15. The exceptional circumstances that is pleaded by Ms.Vikma is that
no reasons have been given in the medical certificate and the disability as to
how they concluded that the petitioner is suffering from 70% disability. She
also referred to Ex.A4 in order to substantiate this point. Therefore, I find some
merit in the case of the civil revision petitioner. At the same time, I have to take
into consideration the submission of Mr.M.Santhanaraman. The accident has
taken place at least 8 years ago and the claimant is suffering without seeing the
colour of the coin.
16. Both sides agree that the case is listed for hearing on 04.11.2024 for
respondent side evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 of 10
17. Hence, while setting aside the order of the Tribunal refusing to issue
summons, I will issue the following directions:
(a) the learned subordinate judge is requested to advance the hearing
from 04.11.2024 to 23.09.2024.
(b) the insurance company will not await the examination of the author
of the disability certificate. It shall proceed further to tender evidence on its
behalf.
(c) the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall issue summons to
Chairman, Medical Board Chengalpet Hospital or any competent person,
Chengalpet to come and depose before the Court on any date between
23.09.2024 and 23.10.2024. It is up to the insurance company to ensure that the
summons are served on the Chairman Medical Board Chengalpet. If necessary,
the Tribunal can also issue handover summons to the insurance company.
(d) It is the lookout of the insurance company to ensure that the
Chairman of the Medical Board or any person, who is connected with the
disability certificate, is brought forth before the court on or before 23.10.2024.
(e) In case the witness has not brought forth before 23.10.2024 then the
Tribunal shall proceed further and pronounce the judgment in the claim petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8 of 10
on the merits of the case.
18. With the above direction, this civil revision petition stands allowed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.09.2024
nl
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge) at Gingee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9 of 10
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
12.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10 of 10
