^ c ..(•' . zy /Oo% MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR ~^^^^ ^M$^^' ^.•••••""' Bahadur S/o Shri Mahettar Jangdey, aged about 48 years, R/o Villager- Binaika, P.S. Masturi , District Bilaspur (C.G.) DRIVER OWNER INSURER Purshottam Lal S/o Baldev Prasad s/o Pantaidih, Chowki Pachpedi, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Shailesh Kumar Gulhare S/o Not Known, R/0 Mannu Chowk, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Baja] Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. , through Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chhattisgarh Complex, Telephone Exchange Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Compensation awarded Rs. 5,000/- Appeal Valued at Rs. 1,93,000/- XI-HC—78 Sf^V W R-ii* JiIii^T'§?RI^ '3^f '^l'sild'q, ®fll'M'l<o,fqMiyy .M.A.-Cc) NO ./ 2-6 3ii^?T'<rasT (lj°i(^<Ei) I'b! tjustfceri cfiuse Sftri A.L. Singroul, couns^i Hsard cn l.A. No.01, apff 64 days in preferring the sppeal 2. On due consideration, i succeeded jn expfaining the Therefore, the appiication is ailct', appeai iscondoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. This is claimant's appea! foi| award dated 10-04-2009 passed) Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (herein) Cl-aim Case No. 128/2008 wher^b Rs.5000/- has been awarded by th| the appei!ant in the accident dated| 5. Shri A.L, Singroui, iearnedi that the amount assessed by the as much as the amount has not injuries susteined nor medicai b| oonsidered and a!so submitfed examined to prove the injuries 4)i'4id41':i 'w^i ^ fs^i" ^I^K ^aifinsiitn for fche appeliant. ication for condonation of delay of srn satisfied that the appeilant has of delay in fiiing the appeal. wed and the delay in prefemng the enhancement of compensatjon in the bv Sixth Additionai Motor Accident i^fter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in sr^by and whereunder an amount of Tribunaj for the injuries sustained by 18-08-2008. c|3unsel for the appellant has submifted 'ribunal is shockingiy on tov/er side in freen awarded inconsonance with the Is produced by the appeliant were that although Doctor has not been su^tained in the accident but iookina to ^w^f f..'i-v^\r~iy\ff^iv^ u^_(-»*^>'b7a- ..J.' •--^— cc XI-HC—7S ^(^ STI^I ^itft^ TS[ '<il<11CT<1, 0'fllyiG, fqOI'My . Al .^ iCcJ A/0 . 11-0 SII^ '<5W the nature of injuries sustained awarded by the learned Tribunal n 6. ! have heard tearned the record. 7. For the reasons best examined the dQctor to prove the 8. !t is settled law that examination ofdoctor.is neither into consideration as substantn compensation in the case. In vi^ view of the fact that noShing has b: amount awarded is inadequaSe,.i the amount awarded by She tribufi^ The Supreme Court in by the appeiiant, the compensation |iay be enhanced. ^ounsel for the appeitant and a4fm Reddy, reported in (2085) 1: under: "S. After hearing !earne| ciaimant who made an High CourS. We find thatl Hlgh Court to rely on the Sudhakar Reddy and'enha| the injury as permanent d| High Court committed gros| Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's med| Tribunal for non-examlnati] has determined the physic| basis of the deposition of <ftN^41^ Hf^tCU'^tS^^I^K ^affinsii^i known to the appellant, he has not i^sjury sustained by him. |the injury reports in the absence of issibte in evidence nor can be Saken ('e evidence for assessment of the jw of the settied position of iaw and in feen broufiht on record to show that ths the considered opinion of this Court, ^l is adequate. <j;ase of A.P. v. P. s, observed in para 6 as •lfu-^ l^tf.,- counse! for att^mpt to support the order of the |there was no justification for the pisability certificate issued by Dr. Vpce the compensation by treating fsabitity to be 45 per cent. The error in overlooking the fact that |cai csrtificate was rejected by the ^n of that doctor. The Tribunal ^l disability at 15 per cent on the ipr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fa',r compensatton. T!t',s High Court errsd"!"; disturbing F XI-HC—78 ~ys( "4i<ii<n<i, yal'y'is, fqoi'yy rf). ft. Cc) ^o, (X)^/ ^ BI^I W K-U* ^s?T 3n^?T gi*i!<p - ^ the same and enhancing t!( we aliow this appeal, set restore the award of the C| claimant is allowed to withdt awarded by the Tribuna] withdrawn." 10. The Supreme Court in ^ le compensation. Consequently, aside the impugned order and |aims Tribunal. The respondent- raw the amount of compensatlon if it has not already been (2008) 7 SCC 30S, reiterated observations in oara 1.1 : "11. The certificate in quef after w?o years. !t is not| Surgeon of the hospital trea< such a certificate was issil took piace is not known. haci not been examined. Uhi examined himsetf, it wad Whethsr the dissbliity at 601 the provisions of the W( otherwise is not known. It id was competent to issue suc appear that the contentions raised befor®the Tribunal oi| aiso ths High Court, theref()r brought on record by th< contention having been raisi| the Workmen's Compensat|on facie has no application, thej permitted to be raised forthi 11. A Division Bench of thi satiii vs. sa. E(bi^?dj!T!'l ^WV^ ^ \Q^ tf^l^K ^sifwsn^i recent dictum in case of Rajesh Singh and another, reported in the same view with the followina on in this case was obtained known as te whether the Clyil |ed the appeliant. On what basis, ^d hvo years after the accidsnt 'he author of the said certificate iess the author of the certificate not admissible in evidence. % was ca!cu!atsd o". the basis of [rkmen's Compensation Act or also not known as to whether he |h a certificate. It even does not Iraised before us had either been the High Court. The Tribunai as '()re, proceeded on the materials parties. In absenc® of any id in regard to the applicabiiity of Act which, in our opinlon, ex same, in our opinion, cannot be first time." High Court in case of Pradeep t & another vide-order dated 31 fv T ':^HC—78 3)1^1 T[ wiaii^i k. Kvr 'ysf •<<wwii, ynl'M'is, fqwK-iy . M.A' Cc) ^ . /^o 31^?i'<ra^' (" March, 2009, placing its relianci in the cases referred above held "8.. In view of the above the cases of A.P. SRTC v. Rajesh Kumar alsas Raju (supra), the certificate absence of examination of is nelther admjs.sible in e\ consideration as substantiv4 compensatiori in the case." procfluced 12. !n a motor accident clairr Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded b^ ana' proper compensation in th case. It is neither a bounty nor e 13. For the reasons mentioni scope for enhancement of th' Tribuhai. 14. The appeal filed by the compensation is therefore liablel order as to costs. 15. No orderasto costs. ^i^f<?^'T 'RW^ff ^?^St •^'rt^R ^aifgn ail^T ^ upon the dicta of Supreme Court in para8 as under: ^uoted dicta of the Apex Court in P. Thsnipa! Raddy (supra) and y. Yudhvir Singh and another before the Tnbuna! m the \he Doctor issuing the certificate ndence nor can be taken into evidence for assessment of the case, as per Section 168 of the yvhat is important is that the the Courts/Tribunal should be just e facts and circumstance of each id id hereinabove, ! do not flnd any a compensation awarded by the appellant for enhancement of the to be and is hereby dismissed. No Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge 'v"^