Ai T7; PABENoA ^) SingteBench B AJSJWR MISC. APPEAL > 2£j_jof2006 .l^l^^^^Sg: [APPSAL UNOER SECTION 173 O^ TOE MOTQR VKHICLES ACTSj $> ^yea.tS t ^C.]ojv^^^r v^svs RBsyom>»m^ KA3SAYAK 3mASAO <ra%NCE ^ed About 36 Yrs. 8/0 3hyws3sl Tiwail Re^ident ofNear Chatea Mill Maiii Rc^d Batodatea&ax*^ Distt. Raipyr.(C.G.) VBSCTT K^MAK yAOSAir S/o Sbyammtaa Yadav Aged about, 27 Yrs. Driyer, R/o Lohia. Na^sur BaicNiabagar, DMtrict^ Raipur.(C.G.) SMT. <?««&soar W/o Sa®3a»ha»fearSo^i Aged About 42 Ym. Owiser R/<? N^r Da^bam Mai^an Balodaba^ar. Distt. Rai$?ar.^C.G.) VEBsm^mQmmmmmcs CeA^S. Sraaich, ^itodafeaaar. 3&?»SyicftS^ii^tsA (C,G.}, insurer ^ym^v^E^^^mQ^ ry^c^'s^s.wy^SLys^t^w AC^.X^^ XI-HG—78 •\"; 3U^T ^T'fyiN' ^fsn ^Tr^T^TRt^ ~+ NWdT^RTcb 's^f r^NKri^ ^^kuKo, [®i<ni<4y ^..i)(iA.......g..6...s...................^ 200 6 3n^?T T^K ('^35^T) '^^TW^fN^T^ S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.M 21.10.2009 Shri Prakash Tiwari, Adv| None for respondent No.| Shri Sourabh Sharma, A^ Heard on admission. The instant appeal has seeking enhancement of comp| 08.05.2006, pa^sed by the Ist Tribunai Baioda Bazar (for s^ 92/06. The brief facts of the on 25.08.04, v^hile the appeilan met with an acddent by Jee 04/ZD-6209 due to rash and ne and pursuant to said accldent s The appellant preferred < under Section 166 of the compensation to the tune of sustained by him on account of The Tribunal, on a clos< the partles, the materla! e caste <=M^fd<flT1 ^H<nl Jf ^S <P»1^K ^3fRW3^?T Aaarwal 3cate for appeliant. 1 &2thoughserved. Ivocate for respondent No. 3. seen preferred by the appeliant, snsation against the award dated '\dditional Motor Accident CIaims ort 'Tribunal') in claim case No. e according to appellant are that, t was returning back to his home, p bearing registration No. CG- gligent driving ofthe Jeep Driver, ustained grievous injuries. in application before the Tribunai Motor Vehicles Act, claiming Rs. 2,60,000/- for the injuries the said accident. scrutiny of the evidence ted by vailable on the record, and " ,/p^\ XI-HG—78 ^n^r^f^rNT ^SH 3TTOT ^RW '3~osr ^ii^iid^ ^iTl^^Ko, [^cni^y WNCtl ft»*(8Ct» :'^ 200 3^\ -q^SF (ltcli^4^) "^mw^f^f 3?i?t^i submissions of the parties, 20,000,7- as compensation in f^' Shri Tiwari, learned submit that although the Doct^ matter, but looking to the f^< grievous injury, and amount this appea! may be aliowed ancl 1 have heard the iearil appeilant and perused the reco| The Supreme Court in c| Reddy, reported in (200S) 12 under: awarded tota! amount of Rs. vour of the appellant. c<t»unsel for the appeliant would has not been examined in this ct that the appellant sustained a^arded Is shocking on lower side, I the compensation be enhanced. |ed counsei appearing for the td. |se of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlmpai SCC-189, observed in para 6 as "6. After hearing iearnec| daimant who made an High Court. We find that t^\ High Courtto rely on the di Sudhakar Reddy and treating the Injury as cent. The High Court the fact that Dr. Sudhakar rejected by the Tribunai doctor. The Tribunai hz disabiijty at 15 per cent on| Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded The Hjgh Court erred enhancing the compensatii this appeal, set aside the award of the Claims Tribuns <=hl^id4l'1 'HW^Tf ^f 1^t <^i^i< '^3iRm^5T counse! for the respondent- atte|npt to support the order of the |ere was no justification for the ^ability certificate issued by Dr. en|iance the compensation by perntanent djsability to be 45 per oomnr|itted gross error in overiooking teddy's medical certificate was |for non-examination of that |s determined the physica! jthe basis of the deposition of a just and fair compensation. disturbjng the same and it>n. Consequently, we allow ir|ipugned order and restore the The respondent-claimant is 'i::^-.."^ T '\ ^. XI-HG—78 'S^ ^WM^, ^tTl^^co, f^Krll^y HWWI ^hwvfn "^ 200 ^?T T^W ( yll<s»<t?) ^n^^^fN? °cy^T 3i?T^rr sh^ich ^<nw ^f?<? 3T^r ailowed to withdraw the arrlount by the Tribunal, if it has not The Supreme Court in a Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated observations in para 11: otheh^ise "11. The certificate in quet after two years. it is not Surgeon of the hospjtal tr( basis, such a certificate v| accident took p!ace is not certificate had not been e>t the certjficate examined hi evidence. Whether the d| on the basis of the Compensation Act or not known as to whether h< a certificate. it even does raised before us had ei Tribunal orthe High Court. Court, therefore, proceedep record by the parties. having been raisedin Workmen's Compensation| facie has no application, th| be permitted to be raised fo|- A Division Bench of thisl Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahi^ March, 2009, placing its relia^ Court in the cases referred abol ohl^fd^l'l WR^Tf ^ fe^t <pil^l< '^>3TfW3TT^T of compensation awarded aiready been withdrawn." recent dictum in case of Rajesh Singh and another, reported in :he same vlew with the foilowing ^tlon in this case was obtained |<nown as to whether the Civil sated the appellant. On what fas issued two years after the cnown. The author of the said tamined. Unless the author of ilnseif. it was not admissibie in ^ability at 60% was caiculated 1-ovisions of the Workmen's is not known, ft is aiso was competent to issue such lot appear that the contentions ifher been raised before the The Tribunai as aiso the High on the materials brought on absence of any contention to the appiicability of the |Act which, in our opinion, ex s^ same, in our opinion, cannot the first time." re^rd High Court in case of Pradeep & anbffter vide order dated 31st |ice upon the dicta of Supreme fe heid in para 8 as under: ^: ^' XI-HC—78 ^^__5 ^fN? TT^T ^n^^ *^i<4» |i«irl» ^ Sa -ysf ^ii^id'4, ^tilwiG, fsi<ni'y>l< HWVII sb*lich "^ 200 ^^'^^(rt^) ^TiWFfft^ 3^T -^- "8. In view of the abov^ quoted in the cases of A.P. SRTQ and Rajesh Kumar a//asj anoffier (supra), the ce| Tribunal in the absence issuing the certificate is nei| can be taken into considel" for assessment of the comi !n a motor accident clain Motor Vehicies Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded just and proper compensation each case. it is neither a bount Forthe reasons mention scope for enhancement of th< Triburiai. The appeal filed by the compensation is therefore iiabl No orderasto costs. lu- cbl^id^l^ TTTR^f ^ is'^ <F'l<^i< ^3tRPT3TT^T dicta of the Apex Court v. P. Thsnspal Reddy (supra) Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and tificate produced before the >f examination of the Doctor her admissible in evidence nor ation as substantive evidence >ensation in the case." case, as per Section 1 68 of the vhat is important is that the 'y the Courts/Tribunai should be n the facts and circumstance of norcharity. d hereinabove, ! do not find any compensation awarded by the ppeliant for enhancement of the to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N. K.Agarwal Judge