;.•<': BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFiCHHATnSGARH AT BJLASPUR PPELLANT n^^ _^^>/" ^-^^ ^' M.A.NO. 1°% /2005 ^^/Jageshwar Ram, son of Shri J^ Maheshwar Ram, aged about 52 years, resident of village Jurgum (Pakertolj), Tahsit and District Jashpur, presently residing at H.T.P.P. Cofony, Darri, Tahsfl and District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Q-^Maanvel Lak(la^ son of Late Nagu Lakda, resjdent of village Baghima, Tah. Jashpur, Distriet Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) IEMO OF APPEAL UNDEft SEGnON^i73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT, 1988 ^y y>" &ESPONDENT -.-—!'' —-ffi-iL / Jageshwar Ram MaanvelLakda APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 198S (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwai. J.) Present : Shri V.K. Agrawal, counsel for the appeliant. Shri B.P. Banjare, counsel on behalf of Smt. Hadmida Siddiqui, counsei for the respondent. ORAL ORDER •th With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finaily. 2. The insiant appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation against. the award dated 27-10-2004 passed by Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Jashpur (for short 'the Tribunal') in C!aim Case No.10/2004 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 62,988/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the appellant. ' 3. Brief facts of the case according to appeliant are, on 21-05-2001, appeliant along with his son was going from Jashpurto Pakritola by his mQtorcycle.In the village Pidi, he was dsshed by the offending vehicle (Jeep) bearing registration No. MP 26 F/1924, as a result of which appeilant sustained ^rievous injuries. • 4. The appellant preferred an Tribunai under Section 166ofthe Motor compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,40 sustained by him In the said accident. appiication before the Vehicles Act, claiming i.OOO/-, for the injuries 5. The fearned Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence ied, material placed and submissions made, awarded Rs.62,988/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the dateoffiling ofthe application. 6. Learned counsel for the appeliant vvould submit: although the Doctor has not been examined but iooking to the fact that the appeliant sustained grievous injury and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on iower side and therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be suitably enhanced. 7. I. have heard the learned appeliant and perused the record. counsei appearing for the 8. The Supreme Court in case ofAP. SRTC v. P. Thirupai Reddy, reported in(2008) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: °6. After hearina learned counsel for the respondent-ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court. We find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overiooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physica! disabiiity at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awardeda just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the.same and enhaneinc the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore. the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- claimant is aiiowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." 9. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvlr Singh and another, reported in (2808) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foliowing observafionsinparall : b -»~\ Kw be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancementof compensation inthecase. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in the award impugned. In the absence of examination of doctor, the amount awarded appears to be on higher side. Therefore, 1 do not find any scope for enhancement of compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 13. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the appeal fails is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Ni. K. Agarwal ^' Judge