^. ^^^'^*'. -^A^-L^S - ;-A-1- . -^ -'jl ' ''•'•_^-~v^'-''v'_K'^-]f^ IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR YC.G.l MISC. APPEAL (C) N0. 116J OF 2008 APPELLANTS Claimants le1 Kumari Nishi Thakur D/o. Meghraj Thakur, aged about .4 years, Minorthrough natural Gaurdian Father Meghraj Thakur S/o. Late Shri B. D. Singh, aged 40 Years, r/o. Risaipara Dhamtari, Tahsil & Distt.-Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS ^' .^\. k '<i^^"' <^ RESPONDENTS. /l. Shahab Rao S/o Punjab Rao' by Caste Manate^ r/o, Village - Hirapur, Thana - Amanaka, Tahsil & Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). Bhupendra Singh S/o. Suraj Singh Tanwarr/o. Tatibandh Raipur, Tahsil & Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Near Adarsh Bal Mandir, Balak Chowk Dhamtari, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) ^y/ ...4^ ^. A^-^' -'•T / Is ^ Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Krishana Complex First Floor Kachahari Chowk Raipur , Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) t MEMO RANDUM OFMISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION l73 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Claim before ttie claim Tribunal, ^,.. —.-.--..- -.-.^_..„...,.„., Claimawarded by the Triburial Rs. ,3,50,000/- Rs/ 1,500/- IG—78 SIT^T SH R-fi'* WIT 3D^T ilititi .*•-, 4- -F tTWpIT tb*11<» 3^'=?IPIRP(, sinl'M'Ko, f"i<iiyy< (^P, c M)&. 1.1 £'3/°S "WI, 200 sn^r lra?R'(^fg^tr) TOtiWHfeSd^! ;CE1 Shri Vaseein Miyau, Heard on adaiission.l 2. AppeUaiit,/ clauaaaj coinpensatioa awai-ded by| Tribunal, Dhamtai-i (for shj 4-2008 passed m CIaim Cs^s 3. As agaiast fhe the appellaat/ clatmant by of the Motor Vehicles Act Eiotor accideiit oa 19-10-3 3,000/- as coiapensatioii. 4. Shri- Vaseein Miya4 veheiaently argued that coiapensation of Rs.3,000,ij sustamed iniiltiple serious 5. For tlie reasons bet doctor was examiiied ffae uijuries ssucl to liave b^ ua. the Eiotor accideat and| .aiiy permanent.disabffity. 6. Tiie questionwliefhe) claunmit before the Tribul coin]|iensatioa tl. • eM^F<1<ftl W-t^ff ^f'fe'^t'<f<l^l< ^TSifiPT 3II^?I |idvocate, for fhe appellant. t is seeking enhEmceinent of the tlie Additional Motor Accident Clai.ms brt "fhe Tribunal") vide awari dated 10- ^e No.599/2004. of Rs. 3,50,000/- claimed by ifiliag a claim petition iiader Section 166 For the injuries su.staiaed by her ia ttie D03, fhe Tribuiial awarded a total of Rs. leai-ued counsel for the ie Tribiuial has en-ed in awardiag low \- os.ly, whereas the appellant/ claimaiit injuries m fhe inotor accident. st kiio^vu the appeliant / clauaaii.t no the Tribzmal to establish ffae nature of ;n sustained by the appeBaat/ claiiaant the fact that ffaose iajuries resulted ia r fhe Biedical certificate. prodtic.ed by the ial"wifhout examiamg fhe ©octorwho .i^ *>:" <l^ XI-HG—78 •^ss '^WvW, 'S^^S, ftl<rtw^ Wt(Ml (h*iicn an^fr'^v (v^^) an^raiT fa-fi* ^qr 3IR?I giW? TOnwHfiaa^i WI, 200 ^rnh^ >iiwf4fel<fl tfa^n ^aiRpTsn^T can relied upon as substaiitive evideace for fhe assessinent of fhe cc|mpeiisation caiae up for consideration before ttie Apex Court in |fhe case of A.P. SRTC v. P. ThirupaS |12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed ia ia 6 as Tuader "6. After hes icspondeiit-claisis support the oide. there was no jusl rely on the disal Sudhakar Reddy by'tieating th.e in be 45 per cent T1 learued counsel for the tt who ruade aa attempt to •rjsf&e High Court, we find t-hat ication for fhe High Court to jility certificate issued toy Dr. id en-haace the coxapensation as permanent disabilily to High CoiiLrt coauaitted gross error iu, overioolditg the fact fhat Dr. Sudhakar Reddy s inedical cfcrtificate was rejected by fhe Tribunal for non-i lation of that doctor. Tnbunal has detefmiaed fhe pbysical disabffiU- at_f5_ per cent onlfhe basis offhe deposition of Dr. _K,M-.Mitra afcd awarded a just aad fsdr coinpensation. • Tbe High Court en'ed in disturbiag f&e and ealianciag the coaipensafion. set aside award of -claimi aiaouat of com- Tribuital, ifit has jnsequently, we a3.ow fbis |e iinpugned oi-der aad restore Claims Tribtuial. The it is allowcd to withdraw tlie lensation awarded bv the rt ah-eady been withdra-rtii." 7. The Apex CoT.u-t ia a|recent dictum ia fhe case of Hajesh afa v.' Yad2|vlr SIagh aad aiaotlier, reported in reiteraljed the saiae view witti the followiiig observations iapara 11 : 1 \a. :\-. . '^ E3-— ^ i\:^::ts^_ '*"ria^CHe—78 'ysi •^WM^, •®w\ww,hw'uy. WWtl th*11<»> "^200 sn^i •^v (i°ifi»<<itf) sn^r qit Rs-fi^ TT8TT 3TT^?T s|i*iiof) ^aiwHtesn^i '' 11. The was obtamed aftdi to whefher fhe treated th.e appej certificate was accident took pla( the said certiScl certificate Unless the aiithi hiinself, it was Whether the disa1 fhe basis of the Coiapensatioii Ac is also not knd cotnpetent to iss| does not appear) before us had Tribunal or the Hj the High Court, taaterials brough^ absence of auy regaid to fhe ai Compensatiou Ac1 has no appUcatic|n cannot be permil time." 8. In the uistailt case, every aspect of fhe luattei been examinecl to prove amount ofRs. 3,000/- has claunaiit. 9. In view of fhe above cases of A.P. =hl<<fd41-f tlWi'il'^f 1s^t <FI|«(II i? .aTfiTH aii^ii ia question in this two vears. It is not knowu as ;ivil Surgeon of fhe hospital tant. On what basis, such a ssued two vears after the :e is not known. The author of te had riot been examined. r of fhe certificate exi not adinissible in evidence, iQity at 60% was calculated on provisioas of fhe Workinen's or ofhenvise is not kaown. Jt iwn as to whetlier he was le such a certificate. It even that tlie contentions raised ifher been raised before fhe Igh Court. The Tribunal as also therefore, proceeded on the on recori by fhe parti.es. In cofcitention haviag been raised ia |iplicabihty of tlie Workinen's which, iu our opmion, ex facie jn, the same, iii our opiaion, tlted to be raised for fhe first Ithe leamed Tribunal after eonsideriiis particularly when fhe doctor has. not fie injury and inedical cei-tificates, an been awarded as conipensation tb fhe quoted dicta. of fhe Apex Court io. the Thirupal Reddy (^upra) aad Rajesh -'•-. N -•t s'.. /^^ 1 £ser;S|i i 'v e ^ ff t&r^;l- '•i',?'8..—^ XI-HG—78 aii^i ^r l<-f '(P'fl SV^V SB*<i°(l ^F *II*ICTI a»*ii<f» 3S[ "41'41d'4, yitll'M'lc, fqCTiyy u. }\°3/^ "^ 200 ^fi-C sn^r'^v ('yf^'i^) ^RITWtto Sfi^Sl certificate produced befo^ examinatidn of the Doct adiaissible ia evidence nd substantive evidence for case. 10. For the foregoiug i{ eiifaanceinent ofthe c'oinpej 11. The appeal filed by t| of tlie coiapensation, hereby disinissed. 12. No order as to costs. therfcfore t^l<lt<'1^1 ^W^ tf ^S^ <^*R$K ^r 3ifgirSRi^ir Ba^i and aaother (Supra), the re th.e Tribunal ia fhe absence of or issiung tbe certi&cate is neither r can be taken iato considei^ition as ssessnient of fhe coinpensation ia the' sasons, I do aot fiiid any scope fer isation awarded by the Tribunal. ue appeUaiit/claiiQant for eiihanceinent ;, is liable to be dismissed and, is Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge .»•• 'N . '• • -•-»' s'.