Can accident tribunals or judges try relief cases, asks HC

BANGALORE: A high court division bench has recommended to the Law Commission of India to look into the possibility of amending laws so as to enable motor accident claims tribunals (MACT) or a civil/district judge to try cases under the workmans' compensation act, 1923.
The bench of Justices K L Manjunath and H G Ramesh made this recommendation after noticing discrepancies in several cases where exorbitant compensation was given on injuries which were non-scheduled (not serious).The relief was given merely on the recommendation of doctors and also advocates representing insurance companies who didn't cross-examine doctors and victims properly in such cases.
The bench felt that such discrepancies can be eliminated or minimized if these cases were to tried before a MACT, or by a civil/distcit judge.
"Lawyers, commissioners under the workmans' compensation act and doctors cannot be party to making an illegal payment to a victim or claimant. The onus is on them as they are dealing with public money. If a doctor gives a false certificate or false evidence, he can be reported to the Indian Medical Association. Commissioners, who are quasi-judicial authorities, should send the cases to a competent medical board to assees the injury by using their discretionary powers. Advocates should try their best to ensure just and proper compensation for the victim or claimant," the bench observed.
The court asked the Karnataka Judicial Academy to hold training programmes for commissioners under the workmans' compensation act and advised the health department to properly guide doctors on giving certificates and evidence.
The case related to an appeal filed by New India Assurance Company, which had challenged compensation of Rs 5,05,016 to Bangalore autorickshaw driver K Somashekara on June 28, 2005. The driver had fractured his right wrist on March 4, 2003. He was examined by an orthopaedic surgeon of Victoria Hospital who felt Somashekara couldn't drive an autorickshaw anymore and incapable of any manual work.
But Somashekara told the high court that he can drive an autorickshaw. The doctor, who was summoned to court, admitted his medical opinion was false and he would never repeat such a thing in future.
The bench closed the matter after both parties agreed that the Rs 1 lakh already awarded would be the final settlement.
Relief for Asnotikar
Justice B V Nagarathna has stayed the urban development department's October 20, 2010 directive withdrawing the denotification order passed in favour of four persons, including former minister Anand V Asnotikar, in respect of 37 guntas of land at Mathikere.
The court ordered issuance of notice to the state government and the BDA in the case.
Asnotikar maintained that withdrawal of denotifaction was uncalled for and it was done to create disruption in the light of he withdrawing support to chief minister B S Yeddyurappa during the 2009 confidence vote. Asnotikar was disqualified from the assembly along with 10 other BJP rebels on October 10.
Katta Jagadish case
The high court has extended the interim stay order in respect of the Lokayukta's October 11, 2010 memo and the court's October 12 order impleading Vasanthnagar corporator Katta Jagadish in the KIADB scam along with tainted board officials.
Katta Jagadish, son of BJP leader Katta Subramanya Naidu, had claimed that he purchased 1.16 acres of land at Bandikodigehalli for a valuable consideration, and as such, there was no illegality.