.^. r^ ,-;.,.f7 •^"-^, r' ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) M. A. fa N0. k-^ ^1 OF 2007 APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS : ^^^ ..N-(-/'"'^v^.-'t ^s^w^^"" ^^"" ....^ ^:A..- ^'S'P*" Naray^n Sahu Son of Romnath Sahu, aged about 23 years, Resident of Village Aramshahi, Police Station Nandghat, District Durg (C.G.), presently residing at Dhourabhatha (Sidhda Baba), Tahsil Bhathapara, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Vishwanath Kewat Son ofVikram Kewat, Resident of Chakarbhatha, Link Road, Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). (Driver bf offending vehicle beahng Car No. C.G. 010/ZD-1683). Nawab-Ahmed Son of Nishar Ahmed, Resident of Masanganj, Police Station Civil Line, Biaspur (C.G.). (Owner of offending vehicle bearing Car No. C.G. 010/ZD- 1683). 3. National Insurance Company Limited, Through: The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, G.E. Road Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). ' (Insurer of offending vehicle bearing Car No. C.G. 010/ZD- 1683). C9 MEMO OF APP.EAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT.1988 1 ^ 78 Vjlw|^||t|ICI)<|,tP-^11<1<l<o, ROW^ Hi^ra,^...^.^.^.'...a^..^2o Sn^STCRW (^clijdtE;) sn^^T^f^w WHOT^tTw+iicp S^iTW ^Tf^cT 311^51 SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICE t 28-1-2Q10 Shri Ashok Soni, Ad^ Shri Anaad Gupta^ Heai'd on I.A, No. 11 filmg the appeal. Ou due consideratit succeeded ia explamiag fl^ Therefore, the app^ appeal is condoned. Heai'd finally at inot|on 2. Appellant/claimant compensation awarded b] Tribzuial, Bhatapara (for sp 1-2007 passed in Claim C^ 3, / As agaiiist tlie appellaiit/ claixo.aiit b^ of the Motor Vehicles Act .Biotor accident on 25-2-:: Rs. 3,000/- as compensati^n 4. Sliri Soni, learaed argued tliat the Tnbunal of Rs.3,000/- only, whet niultiple seriozis iajuries ir| cpi<ii«<n<i*ii<icl)T^'fe^3 xRi^i^c ^3lRl<l3II^5T .K. AGARWAL ^ocate, forappellaat Ldv. for respondent No^ 3. appHcation for coiidoB.ation of delay ia |5u, I ain satisfied fhat the appeUant has delay caused iii film-g the appeal. ication is allowed. Delay ia •fitmg the stage with the conseiit of th.e paitles. is seekiiig enhaiiceinent of the fhe Aclditional Motor Accideiit Claims sjliort "the Tribiuial") vide award dated 9--. 4se No. 9/2006. of Rs. 2,00,000/- claimed by fiUiig a claioi petitioii zuider Section 166 |for tlie iojuries 'siistaiaed by hioi in the ;, the Tribuiial awarded a total suni of i|3U. . coiuisel for fhe appeUant vehemently |ias erred io. awardiiig low coiapeiisatioii ^as ,fhe appellaiit/claixn.aiit sustaio.ed fhe inotor accident coiiibensatlon 2405 C-78 *11*ICTI $^*tT^ V$W ^KKIIOq, t»-^11t1<|<e,RrtW^ ^\i\C M&. ^(^^ /o^W120 3IT^^Tq5TRlicp d^T<3iR?TW<11cp 3n^9Tira^(<3^fg^) ^(<TT^^^iisaw^ -^- 5. Per conti'a, Shri G|upta, leanied couiisel appeadag for the respondent no. 3 subinit^ fliat ia the facts aad circuinstao.ces of the case, tlie award pass^ not requii'e aay eB.liao.c| ;d by the Tribunal is adequate aiid it does eBient aiid the appeal desei-ves t6 be dlsmissed as tlie doctor li^.s uot beeu exaiiii&ed to prove iajury, 6. For fhe reasons be| cloctor was examiiied befd tlie icjuries smd to have l^ 7. Tlie question whetl]| claioiaiit. before tlie Trib'l issued flie certificate caii tlie assessmexit of the c| before the Apex Court h} Reddy, reported iii (200S| para 6 as inider : "6. After hej <pi<<Io<OTi *ii<ioT^ffe<-3 xRi^$i<< ^?3lRl+l3IT^^T ^t known to tlie appellant / clamiaiit no > |re tlie Tribunal to establish tlie nature of [een sustahied by fhe appeUaiit/ clamiant iii Uie motor accident ar4:l th.e fact that those iiijuries resulted iu aiiy pei'maaeiit disability.] er fhe Biedical certificate produced by fhe io.al wifhoiit examiiiiiig the Doctor who--, 36 reUed uposi as siibstsiitive-evidence for Dmpensation caine up for consideration the case of A,P. 8RTC v< P< TSiirispal 12 SCC 189, wherein it was obseryed hi armg leamecl comisel for the there was no ju; Reddv's medical rcspoudeat-claiD|iaiit who made aii attempt to support the ordejr offhe High Court, we find that ^tificatiou for the High Cozirt to rely on fhe dis^biHty certi&cate issued by Dr, aad enhaiice the coitipensation Sudhakar Redd\< by treatmg the i| be 45 per cent. error in overlooltm.R the fact fhat Dr. Sudhakar |ijuiy as pennanent disabi]it>r to Fhe Hiph Court committed gros_s certificate. was reiected by -the Tribunal for nonl-exammatiQn of that doctor. Tt^ Tribunal has deltermiaed tlie •plivsical disabiliftr ^wi <neil«l«<4,y-^1^<l<i, Rlril^l^ ^r^C MG- ^(.4/07~ *ii*irti apif^.——.....—..................... ^20 sn^^Tira^ (lici^6i<£S) sn^^rwf^vw <raT3TT^$Tfl»+licp gTcTTwr^erw^^T -3- at_15_per_cent ob^^^^A of the depositlon of Dr. K.M. Mitra cozapensation, disturbniR fhe conipensatlon. appeal, set aside the award of| respondent-clai^ amount of Tribunal, if it h^ |CDixsequently, we atlow fhis fhe iaipugned order and restore the Claims Tribunal, The is allowed to withdraw the cotiipensation awarded by fhe not akeady been wifhdrawii.?? claiitiaat 8. The Apex Coiirt m Kumar aBas Raju v< Yi (2008) 7 SCC 305, reit^ observations ia para 11; " 11. The was obtamed aft to whefher fhel teeated ffae ap^| certi&cate was | accident took the said certi^ hiniself, it wa; Whether the the basis of fU< CoHipensation 41 is also not corapetent to i^ does not appe| before us had Tribunal or the the High Coui|t materials brou^ absence of any regard to the 4»i^ifo41i*ii«ioT<ffe^^f •OtlTPT^TR^T aad awardeda iust aiid fair The High Court erred ia samie aiid enJbLaacing tihie a recent dictum ia fhe case of RajesSi idhyir Sisagfa and axiother, repoxled in rated the saine view witli tlie followio.g celrtificate in question in this case [€T two years. It is not kiiown as Civil Surgeon of flie hospital ^Ilaat, On what basis, such a issued . two years after fhe is not kaown. The aiifhor of cate had not been exammed, p^ace Unless the autbor of the certificate examiiied not adniissible ia evidence, di^abUity at 60% was calculated cn provisions of the Workmen's LCt or othenvise is not known. It kbown as to whefher lie < was »sue such acertificate. It eveii ^r fhat the coiitentions raised eitiier been raised beforc fhe |High Court. The Tribzinal as also therefore, proceeded on fhie (ht cn record by the parties.lu ^ontention havmg been raised m [appMcabilily of fhe Worlcmen's ./..--!:'-'^< ^ _XI-iC-78 ':3: ^vq "qi^lc'XI, tP-nltt<l<»,Rrtl^^ 9 __^_ ^y^ C ^^D^^ ^ /^- *IHril ^TTq? .................................... ^p^20 ^) sn^^Tqfff^rra? nsiTSIT^^T^h^icb 317^$Tq^F (l3?rfg^S) g^STW ^Tf^T OT^^T CoBipeusation has no appUc caiinot be time." A^t which, ia our opiaion, ex facie :>lica^ion, the same, in our opinion, peii^itted to be raised for fhe first h^s 9. In the iQ.staat casej tlle claimant spent ia t^i facts aad circuiastances has not been exainiaed amountofRs. 3,000/- claimaat. 10. In view of the abo^ cases of A.P. SRTC v. Kiimar alias Rajis v. Y^a certificate prodiiced be^ examiaation of fhe Do| adinissible ia evideuce substantive evidence forl case. 11. For the foregoiag ^nhaiiceinent of the com.p|< 12. The appeal med by| of fhe coisipensation, th^ hereby disHiissed. 13. No order as to cost^ it is uot provecl as to how inuch asziount ^atment aad, therefore, consideriiig flie of the case, partictilarly wheu flie doctor to prove the iojury and certificates, an been awarded as conipensation to fhe CPI<4I«<I1<1*11+1C)V<ffe^ ^Rl^l^ ^»3rf^T3n^S7 re quoted dicta of the Apex Court ia fhe P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) aad Rajesh idhvir Si2&gh aaad aiiother (Supra), the bre the Tribimal io. the absence of ^tor issuiug the certificate is neither lor can. be taken iiito consideration as assessmeiit of fhe coszipensation in the reasous, I do not find any scope for leusation awarded by the Tribunal. tiie appellaiit/clsimiaxit for^enliaiicesiieiit ^refore, is liable to be dissiiissed and is Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge