IN THE HIQH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR; If^. M.A. No. a3<? /2005 'APPELLANTS /CLAIMANTS ,1. Rajlal, S/o. Late Shivkumar Tiwari, Aged about 23 years. ?• RESPOND^NTS ^6ON-APPLICANTS •^ ^ ^M/ ^\!ff'^£ /€^ /'ihYAy //y ^ 0s-, Santosh Kuriiar, S/o. Late Shi.vkumar Tiwari, Aged about 21 years. Both R/o. viUage Nareshpur, P. S. 8s Tahsil Surajpur, District Surgu]a(C.G.). ' ! ! VERSUS ly'.SKiwn^a3?aji^S/6.Ai^ ; ^ Aged about 26 years, ; Dceupation- Driver, R/o. village Agastpur, P.S. & Tahsi] Surajpur, Distt. Siirguja (C.G.). (DRWER) • 2. Jawaharlal •Gupta, S/o. Late / Ramlal Gupta, Aged aboyt 45 years, Occupation-Business, R/Q. Main i?oad, Surajpur, P.^ & Tahsil Surajpur, Distriet Surguja(C.G.). (OWNER) Na.ti.onal Inisiirariee Coinpany iMMfed,^ Divisional Majaager, Korba, Distt. ^Korba (C.G.).;:^ (IN^t^El^ 'V' :'.a.^ HS s: w ...•....^':.:':;:::.'.'-' APPEAL U/S. 173 OF M.V. ACT EOR THE ENHANCEMENT XI-HC—78 SV^V W Ri-li4i ^2ff 3TT^T 9h^l<^ TTrT:3"TF -EiL^miu fi-_Lci^od-i^yjL ^ST "41<11<f<l, ®TTI+1'16, fsKII-ay pr^^ (^0.^33/oj- an^T'T^? (' TOITWHfetan^I SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICS Nj 19-11-2009 aik?ard Acciflent pass^d Shri Ashok Kumar Shr| Shri Raj Awasthy, Adv.| 2. AppeUants/ claimants| compensation awarded by IIIrd Additional Motor (FTC), Distt. Sai^uja preferred by fhe claimants Vehicles Act, 1988 (heremaf^ 3. As against the coiape^ by the appellants/claitnant^ Section 166 of fhe Moto^ sustained by Pawan Kiima^ accident on 24-10-2000, fh^ Rs. 1,000/- as compensation| 4. Shri Ashok Kumar appeHants vehemenfly awarding low compensation| tojured sustaiaed multiple| accident. Sh4kla, an arffi^d ^raferah iwrcff 'if fest <r»i(^i< ^sifOTflI^T K. AGARWAL Advocate, for the appeUants. for fhe respondent No. 3. are seeldng enhancement of the dated 25-11-2004 passed by Claims Tribunal, SiiTajpur in Claim Case No. 38/2002 under Section 166 of tfae Motor er referrcd to as the Act). isation of Rs. 7,00,000/- claimed by flling a claim petitfon under Vehicles Act for the injuries •i (since deceased) in the motor Tribunal awarded a total sum of Sfhukla, leamed counsel for the that the Tribunal: bas erred tn ofRs.1,000/- only,whereas the saious injuries in the motor '•'^c^sf <. 'I J ^jr ^ '•i%g^::.^ XI-HC—78 •u- an^twfnw 'ctsff sn^?T %"{ii^ 75f '^WWi, W\WW, fsiCTiyy NFWII aaHi^l Sll^T'T^? (' ?^IIW8te3Ti^sl 5. Per contra, Shri Awastj: the respondent no. 3 su| ctrcumstances of fhe case, t^ is adequate and it does not i|i appeal deserves to be dismij examined to prove injury. 6. For fhe reasons best doctor was examined befort natnre of fhe injuries said t{ Kumari ui fhe motor acciderjt resiilted in any 7. The question whether by the claimant before the Doctor who issued fhe substantive evidence for the| came up for consideration be| A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirapal R^< 189, whercin it was observec| jri, leamed coimsel appearing for Ibmits that in the facts and (ic award passed by (he Tribunal |equire any enhancement and the fesed as the doctor has not been ki|iown fhe appellant / claimant no ^ the Tribi.mal to establish tfae |) have been sustained by Pawan and (he fact that those tajuries permanent di|sablllty "6. After hearing respondent-claimant support the order of ti fhere was no justificati' on fhe disability certifli Reddy and enhance tt wiferaN •wrcfi •cffsrzt <f»i^i( ^affinsir^T jthe medlcal certificate produced [Tribunal without examining the c^ttficate can be relied upon as (assessment of the compensation |fore fhe Apex Court in the case of l^ddy, reported m (200S) 12 SCC in para 6 as under : leamed <»unsel for fhe ^ho made ari atteaipt to ~ |ie Hlgh Conrt, we -find that fin for fhe High Court to rely ^ate issued by Dr. Sudhakar ^e compensation by fa-eating i«ll W'SsSSliS XI-HC—7S ~ysi ^WI^ ffxily'i®,f6i<ni'MS<- -<-- •JV-VL^ _'"»OA_ T ^f ^ '•: '<i;%s'!S3a XI-HCs= 7^ •*II<<I<-1'LI, 8>T)I-(-1<IC, (qWI-Hy WHCtT glHr^ "^,200 31T^T'tT=W (^S|fgS[^t() sn^TqilR-tji* ff^ ^f^l ^iffl^) TOiiwitosii^f fhe injiuy as permaner The High Court c overloolmig the fact that _Dr^ gudhater Reddv's medical certificate was non-examination of th determined fhe phvsic^l disabilitv at 15 oer cent on the basis of the depodition of Dr. K.M. _Mjtra_and awarded a iust ^nd f Court erred in disturbtog the same and enhancinfi the compensation. O 8. appeal, set aside the fhe award of the ClaiDal claunant is aUowed compensation awarded| already been wifhdrawit The Apex Court ta a re4 Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhijlr in (2(X)8) 7 SCC 303, rei^ following observations in par< "11. The certificate obtained after two vyhether the Civil SUT) the appellant. On what issued two years after known. The author of been examined. Unless examined himself. it evidence. Whefher calciilated on fhe tt baslis Workmen's Compensa1|ion knowrL It is also not ^awral7!'Hprcrf'? fe^ Tf»n?R '^sifwsniT! |t disability tq be 45 per cent. t>iiunitted gross error in reiected by the Tribunal for l.Ldoctpr. The Tribunal has ter compensation. The Hieh ^nsequently, we allow fhis topugned order and restore |s Tribunal. The respondent- > wifhdraw the amount of |by the Tribimal, if it has not •^ |:ent dictum in the case ofRajesh Sln^i and aaother, reported terated the same view with the k 11: 41 question m this case was ye^rs. It is not Imown as to 'lieon of the hospital treated [basis, such a certificate was 1jhe accident took place is not |the said certificate had not the author of the certificate was not admlssible in disability at 60% was of the p-ovlsions of fhe Act or otherwise is ns Known as to whethe} T XI-HC—78 1 ^5T ^WWi, ®-a1'M'l<o,[qyi'My HIMCTI <SW<*8 Wl. 200 SiI^I 'VR: (li«li^»l<'T) l^nwafta sii^i coiapetent to issue su< not appear fhat the c had either been raised High Court. The therefore, proceeded o! record by the parties. having been raised in tfae Workmen's opinlon, ex facie has our optnion, cannot the Srst time." In the instant case, it is Tribuhal fc Comp^nsation 3|10 tafc sp^nt the injured rematoed in how much amount she considering the facts an4 particularly when fhe doctor| the uijuiy and certiflcates, ai^ awarded as compensation to 10. In view offhe above the cases of A.P. SRTC v. Rajesh Kumar aUas Raju (Supra), the certUicate absence of examination of th|e neither admissible in evi4 con^ideration as substantiv^ compensation in fhe case. '4)1*<^^^T^^ ^ t^t Tf^i^R ^sifOTsn^i ;h a certificate. It even does ontentions rateed before us before fhe Tribunal or the as also tfae Hlgh Court, i the materials brought on absence of any contention •egard to the appllcabiUty of Act which, in our application, the same, in ; permitted to be raised for not proved as to how many days hosfpital. It is also not proved as to in treatment and, therefore, cu-cumstances of tfae case, has not been exanalnesd to prove ^ amonnt ofRs. 1,000/- has beea |the claunants. qlaoted dicta of fhe Apex Court in |P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and ]p. Yudhvlr Slngh aad another before fhe Tribunal in the Doctor issuing fhe certiRcate is tence uor can fe taken into f^ evidence for assessment of the prod|uced F XI-HC—78 sn^rw WISIR^I l.."' ..< + '?st •^i^icil, »Tlly'l<o, f°<<rll'y^< *fWV\\ «>»!1<*» 3^1 TI5R? (liclf'l'<<S?) TOnwaf^isn^i compen^aUon 11. For the foregoing enhancement of the 12. The appeal ffled b; enhancement of the compe dismlssed and is hereby 13. No order as to costs. rea^ons, I do not find aay scope fbr awarded by the Tribtmal. fhe appellants/claimants for inpetisation, therefore, is llable to be ompe|isation distalssed. ^>l<i^<lll 'RR^ff 'F? tS^f <R^R ^affgtiail^l Sd/- N.K. Agrawa! f Judge | 111