IN THE HIGH COURT QF _C^HATTISGARH_AT,LBILASPUR,_C..G. M.A. .No. •^-^/ /2003 C' ^ 1 APPELLANT CLAIMANT" /' : , RamrNQrayan Jaiswal, S/o Anuj Jaiswal, aged about 45 years^ occupation:seryice (security guard in SECL Bhatgaon) ,_ R/o village Jhumarpara^ police station Jainagar^ Tahsil Surajpur^ Distt,Surguja (C.G<») • ^ VERSUS ^ESPONDENI-S ^NON-CLAIMANTS ^" ^ Ishwar Prasad Jaiswal^ S/o Dev Sharan Jaiswal^ aged about 40 years^ occupation service and busxness^ R/o village tJhumarpara^ P.Se J'ainagar^ CEahsil Surajpur^ Distt»Surguja(C»G»)• (DRIVER) National InsuranCe Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch office Raipur, (C»G<). (INSURER) Mphd. &a£ Shafiqye, S/o Hohd. Siddi^ae^ occupation business^ &/o Sharda chowk, Rahmanlya ChoW&j Raipur (C»G<») (REGIS3?ERED OWNER OF JEEP No!. MP-23L/8167) U/s__173 _OF_MOrCOR _YEHICLE_ACT 1988 FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE AWARD l-HC—78 3;?7^T^T r^H^ *TSTI 3?T^T 9^^ic?i •"^ A, L^ ^ ^ ^Wni ^iHKh "3~^[ ^i^Ki^. ^>Tii^(4i^, r^^i^y . ^T^t-l6}/^3>'^200 3TT^T'IT^F (^i^<N<^) F^TW^f^T 3?T^T SBs HOH. SHRI JUSTICE K Shri Shaktiraj Stnha, No. 2. 2. AppeUant/ claimant !^ "W^ff ^ Fs^ci <P^^« '^'3tRw 3^?T .K.AGARWAL 20-7-2009 SIu-i Ashok Kumar Sh^ikla, Advocate, for the appellant. ^dv. for flie respondent No. 1. Shri Gautam Kshetra^al, Advocate, for the respondent ^aianarayaa Jaiswal is seeldng enhaiicement of tlie com^ensation awarded by fhe IInd Additional Motor Accident [Claims Tribunal (FTC) Surajpur (for short "the Tribunal^) passed in M.A.C.C. No..2/2| the appellant/ claim.aatj vide award dated 30-6-2003 &02. 3. As against tlie compe^isation of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of fhe Moto^ Vehicles Act. for the injuries sustaiaed by him hi tfie ^notor accident on 24-9-97, the Tribunal awarded a to|al sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation. 4. Shri Ashok Kumar ^hukla, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argu^d that fhe Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensatio|a of Rs. 15,000/- only, whereas the appellant/ claimant su^taiaed multiple serious inJLiries s»- xi-HC—78 3?[^l "^T f^t-li4) 7W 3T?^T ^^Jcb '^ ..J. \% T^^is^i^^; ^Tii<H4iro, r®irii^^< WH^r<bNI<b "^200 3ff^T '17^' (^qi^<^) ^TOT ^rf^T 3:iT^T ibot in fhe motor accident mid 16 days. 5. Per contra, Shri Su4 the respondent no. 1 circunistances of the casej is adequate and it does the appeal deserves to b^ been examined to prove in}j 6. For fhe reasons besfc no doctor was exainined H( nature of the mJLiries appeUaiit/ claimant in th^ those injuri.es resulted tn 4 7. The question wheth^r by fhe claimant before th^ Doctor who issued ttie substantive evidence compensatioli came up Court m the case of A.3 reported in (2005) 12 SC^ pai'a 6 as under : sald '3FP?f^Jn W^f ^ Fs^l <r?f^s< ^? >3TJ?R ^^ was admitted in fhe hospital for |ha, learned comisel appearing for mbmits fhat in the facts and the award passed by the Tribunal require any enhaiicement and dismissed as the doctor has not |uiy. knowu the appellant / claimaat lefore the Tribmial to establish the to have been sustained by the motor accident and the fact fhat ^ny permanent disabillty. the medical certiflcate produced Tribunal without examining the ^ertificate can be relied upon as for the assessment of the consideration before the Apex y. SRTC v. P. Tfairupal Reddy, ^ 189, wherein it was observed in fl>r Xi-KC—78 B~^r ^il^H^, ^Trl<-{^i<'o/T^<n<Jri^< Hl*lCTi <h«icb "^200 sn^r^^ (^i^4<^T) ^T^^T'f^W ^^T 3?ri^T ^^w ^ J. ^<?T^R ^fi^T 3^T 8. -claim^nt Vvlas "6. After hearil" respondent-< to support the 04 find that there High Court to certificate issuedl and enhance tliel the injury as per cent. The error in overiod Hidh ig leamed counsel for the who made an attempt ^ler ofthe High Court, we no justiflcation for the rely on the disability by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy [compensation by toreating clisabiUty to be 45 Court committed gross per^ianent Sudhakar Reddv ^ medical certificate was reiected bv tl- examination of tbat doctor. The Tribunal has determmed ttt per cent on the Dr. K.M. Mitraari compensation. T disturbins the compensation. appeal, set aside restore the award The respondent-t withdraw the awarded by the already been with<|lrawn The Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar alias Raji reported in (2008) 7 SCC the following obser^ations ^CT^-q^•qrq^f ^ f^?t <F^^s< ^3tRR SH^T dng the fact fhat Dr. Tribunal for non- phvsical disabilitv at 15 'asis of fhe depositiou of d awarded a iust and fatr bie High Cour^_eired_in fame and enhancing the Cc|nsequenfly, we allow this |the impugned order and of the Claims Tribunal. ;laiiiiant is allowed to a^nount of compensation ITribunal, if it has not |a recent dictum in the case of v. Yudhvir Singh and another, ^05, reiterated fhe same view with |n para 11: ^n—- ^ a 1 y. ^ K^;^^' XI-HC—78 ^5=[ ^|qH<4, ^Tll^^^, [^<rtl^lj,< ^ *-ii*i^ii^Ni®r» "^200 a-n^T -?5W (^cji^^.T) '^T^ '^T frr^ ^T^T '37T^T s^Hicr» •-^ ^ a <&• •^^TW^f^^H^T certlillcate " 11. The case was obtained known as to wh^t] the hospital treat^d basis, such a c^rtificate years after the a^ known. The auttdc had not been exatnmed. Unless the author of the cerdficate not admissible ii] disability at 60°/^ basis of the provf Compensation A( known. It is also he was compel certificate. It even| contentions raise< been raised CoLirt. The Tribiml fherefore, brought on rec< absence of any raised in regard Workm.en?s Comp our opinion, ex fhe same, in 01 pennitted to be rai beford the procee|ded 9. In the instant case, Tribunal has.observed fh disability. It is not pro^ ^OTte^N WR^rf ^ f?Tst ^fw?R •^3ff?m3iT^r in question ui this after two years. It is not her the Civil Surgeon of fhe appellant. On what was issued two cident took place is not >r of fhe said certificate xamined himself, it was evidence. Whefher the was calculated on the isions of the Workmen's or otherwise is not bot fcnown as to whefher mt to issue such a |does not appear fhat the before us had either Tribunal or the High ^l as also fhe High Court, on the materials rd by fhe parties. In ;ontention having been () fhe applicability of the msation Act which, in S^cie has no application, ^ir opmion, cannot be [bed for the fu-st time." |n para 20 of the award, leamed ^t the appellant has not proved ;d as to how many days the q^ -HC—78 ^^ ^I^M^, ^Tii^4i<?/r(si^i'^li< ^IN^tl $b*11<ft -^200 311^'^^ (^q{^<^T) ^F^T^'T^W 7TNT •3?I^T^RNT .^\ ^^& a>s »4*»WF*fr»*iB*^^? .;... .< ^s»^v^iff^wii^^^ ^ ;,:-<S.'cH*. X-" . »—(.->«^^.<.«+fc»«-4^?WBIE><Wt *»*« ^A.3^ :«»*3Kt*«S»v**' ^^^^..^^^ •i l.t"!-^JL-<"t-w^'"" ^wy^fi^ t^^»»«s»»'<?t««#»^i&*i!»';it'' ,fs^v«t,,#«--*^v J. t ^CTW ^f^ ^T^? appellant remained in ho| how much amount he s^> c©n^fdtriiig the facts af ^ ^ ^ pia^€^lai|ly when the do| prc?ve^€inju^ and certi4cates •„:'-,,..^l'^y^iiv^..' JLia.s^snawarded as com{}< 10. In view of the above ;s of A.P. SRTC v s»«y^^^fi^Rumaralias Raji^ ,,^&^ the certificate t^3^^c^^ ' -absencS of examination of| in'L •>..-.,.^^ '^. ^ is^n^ither admissible m ul^ ^«ist)toL§i(lfi!^.tionas substantr prcjduced compensation in fhe case. 11. For the foregoing enhancement of fhe 12. The appeal filed enhancement ofthe comp< dismissed and is hereby di; 13. No order as to costs. <^W?<rt41^'^RT^Tf'^t^t <n;i^'< i!?3tRm3TI^T spital. It is also not proved as to mt in treatment and, therefore, id circiimstances of the case, ;tor has not been examined to .cates, an aniountof Rs. I5,000/- lensation to the claimant. ^uoted dicta of the Apex Court in P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and v. Yudhvir Singh and another before the Tribunal in fhe |the Doctor issuing the certificate bvidence nor can be taken into Ve evidence for assessment of the reatsons compep.sation sons, I do not find any scope for awarded by the Tribunal. ?y the appellant/claimant for ;nsation, fherefore, is liable to be ^missed. Sd/- N. K.Agarwal Judge