\ ‘1) z 41f if w N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C. 92‘ ISCELLANEOUS APPEA SINGLE BENCH ‘/Aman‘eet Singh Jabba!, aged 44 Yea? S/o. Late B.S. Jabbal, Occupation : Leth & Febrication business, R/o Behind Petrol Pump, Abhanpur, Tah. & Distt- Raipur (C.G.) APPELLANT J, CLAIMANT i VERSUS R/ESPONDENTS / / Janak Kumar aged about 35’ Year NON-APPLICANT f S/o. Khogu Singh Patei Occupation — Driver of Truck Resident : Umar garon, P.S. Sihava Tah. & Distt : Dhamtari (C.G.) Charan Singh Arora, S/o. P.N. Arora, Occupation — Owner of Truck Resident : C/o. Puran Road, Lines, ‘ Station Road, Raipur Tah. & oistt : Ra’ipur (C.G.) The United India Insurance Company Limited, th‘roughhDivisional Manager, a Divisional Office, Kutchheri Chowk, Jail Road Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous, Appeal under/section L73 Motor Vehicle Act 1988 I G ? M L NO. H¥GH CGUR" GF CHHAT?§ WW x $GARH RT x‘gH. §P§JR MA. N0. 52% 6f 23%5 W £PPELLANT CLAIMANT Amarjeef Singh ‘ Jabbai REEFGNEENT§ Now-APPL:CANT Janak Kumar ahd athers Misce €aneous a “ea! una’er Sectian 1 ?3 6f :he §e16tor R Vehzci$s AC2, 3388 {$B: %icm’ M me Wk". NK, gaarwai‘. at} f s been awarded by the '§'?§bunai far f’ne injuriee euetained by him in the meior accident. 5. AS agair‘iei the campeeaetim of Rsi8,2G,GDG/-ciaimed bythe appeiiawt by fiiing awiicaticn unc‘er Section 1 ‘yehicies Act on accnuni of injuries eustained by him in {h es of the Mixer E aitAJG‘J uy i‘x Tnunlr :i‘uun u€anng k u? A: :cgiStlatiuf‘: usa' us 'A Nu la 1" via-U4 G 44 i i u n awardea‘ cnmnensaticn of Rezww- aicng with w f m 53c? L‘.‘ a.“ ai1”‘ii.im x fiun. wn iii: ‘ A date a Of ayWiCq‘éiOi": Am i n7: “if” ’ ILS ‘L paymm 1 An- E. : Mr. AL. $ingrau ccansel far the aweEani Mr. *(urre, ccunsei far {espondent N03 gRAL GREER {mm2ma} Heard 0n M.(C.) P‘ No.673i’2008 W‘wéch §s an apmsaiian far candaaatmn of cg‘aéay‘ m wing the &ppe55 2. {3n due consideratmn; l am $at§sf§ed that the appeh'ari is succeeded in exp§ainin§ the aause 0f deiay. in f§:€ng the apgiea? and; therefare! {m appiicathn {N348}? No.6?3/2 G6} §s a£3owed. De¥ay in the 5mg me aggeai is condoned condoned 3‘ Heard “i“. admssicn. ,5 ’ 4‘ msiani ayzpaa: ha$ hear; fiied by me argpeaant/ckimant . . . set-fang er; anaemerd 0f {me aompenwtion m the award dated 3.223% pas$ecf by ThErteenfh Additioryaé MGtGr Accident Ciaims Tribune} {FWT‘CQJ Raipar (far she: ‘i‘he uuw f Tribumal") in C£aim Case N026/2m‘ Whareby aim whereunder an Q u. Leamed Tr§bunaL Gr, a ciose scrutmy of the antEre evéa’ence Led before §t heid tha? {he accédeht has occurred due to ra3h arid neg§igent drivMg by the driver of iru¢k baai'mg registrmian CG- é G 4 f1!i- “A f) mu, we respmdent No.3/msurance Company is i€ab¥e for paymem 0ft. mpematien as resp‘anden? {‘éa.3/insurance Company faiied i0 wave v§aiai§an a? pciiicy canditians; "awarded a§are$aid amount 0f mmpensatian to the appeHant/daimant again$t the reaporidents. 7 l. Shri AL Singrau: , ieamed ceunse! appearing for the appeuant weuld eubmit : e§though the appeiiant has not examined the doctor to prove the iniuries suetaihed by him in the accident, however; the teamed Tribunat has fatten in error th awarding tow amount of compensation. 8. t have heard teamed counset tor the parties and perused the materiat avatta‘ote on record ihctuding tmpughed award f) at For the reasons heat khowr; to the appettant, the appettant did not examine the doctor who treate him to prove the inturiee sustatned by him, disahitity if any sustained and the resuttant oss “The deposition arecorn ensatio of Dr K’Vt he Mitre Hi h {Sourt end awarded erred in a disturbi rust and Ut question whether the medical oerttftcate produced by the ciaimant hefore the Tribunat without examining the Doctor who issued ‘ ‘L‘A we certificate can be retied upon as substantive evtdence for the assesement of the compensatton came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of AP, SRT v. P. Thirupai Reddy, reported in (23%) 12 33C 18¢}, wherein it was ohserved'in para 6 as Ht! Ci . “6. After heartng tearned counset for the respondent— ota..ant who made an attempt to eupport the order of the High Court, we find that there was no juettfioation for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by t ng the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per oeut. The High Court committed orose error in overtookino the tact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv‘s medical certtticate was reiected bv the Tribunat for not: examination of that doctor. The Tribunat has determined the oh‘v'stcai isabittt‘y' at 15 oer cent on the basis of the f n T n the earne and enhancing the compensation. Cons‘equ‘entiy, we attow this appeat, set aside the impognedorder and restore the award of the Claims K \. r i Tribunai The rasgondent-ciaimant is alfawed t0 ‘H. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh ‘ observatians {2%38; Kala.“ ? aiias $36 in Rajsi Fara 335, 11 u reiteratrsd : the same anti view ana‘mer, with the reparted fm’iawing in abiained "1 1‘ The afier certi‘fs‘cate two years; in #t quesfi‘on is not known in :his as to case whet was Vat; ‘ the Civi: Surgsnn ef tne' haspEial treated ine apneHant. On whai basia such a cedincate was issued iwo ygars affer the accident tack mace is net knewn. The autna“ 0‘ ihe said cemficate h et been . U h ' ad n examined nleSS the previsiens of ine er otherwise is not s to whether he was lificefe. :t even does net ‘ ed before ue had either which to absence en the the applicahirrty in materiers of our any opinieni 0 contention the bmugnt 0r the High ex. Werkmen’s fecie en having Ceurt, record has been therefore no Cempensenen by eopiieetion; raised the preceeded parties. in regard Aer the In i2. i“. view of the above queted dicta of the Apex Ccun in the cases before the Tribunei in the absence of examination of t. e Boctor tafren into consideration es suostantive evroence for assessment of t3 For the foregoing reasons, i do not find any scooe- for enhancement of the oomner‘sation awarded by the Tnhunei. comoensetiom therefore, is iiebie to he and is hereby dismissed. of AP. ' $RT~2 “uehvir v, $ingh P. Thirirhai and aneiher Reedy ($upra; (Supra): and ihe Rajesh certificate Kumar produced aiies certificate is neither admissihie in evidence nor can he e the a“p eiiant for enhancement of \ Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ‘ ‘ ”e '. \i