^s^h ^«"A ( VK^. 1 lTi'il.1 ^fc^" tWGHL APPEU.ANT OLAJM^r- ^flA NtfctaS^C^^OflS -Glrathar ©hritalahare--S/o K.P. Dhtttalahare; a9edabout,Wyttars, RA» Vflllage An^hl, P.Q. & f.S. Aian9,Tah. &Dlstt.Ra4>ut(C.G.) WESPONDENTS/ 1 NCiN-^PUCANt 2. 3. Versus Puran @ Pitfaolk NlrmaUtm^ S/o Punlt Rann Nirmalkar, Occupation Driver, R/o Vfllage-Ranfe^ar, P.S. Arang, Tah.S Distt. Raipur(C.G.) Sanjeev Sachhar, S/o Q.L. Sachhar, R/o Near Ganga SAirto Chowki, New Shantl Nagar, flfett. Raipur (C.G^ The New»lfl^felnsy» e®em|»any Umlted, •ttwough DtViBltaia^ Managec, Bivistonat ©fflce, Ksctwhii ChcW»k, JaiU Roaei, RaIpyC ,M»I^MyUN RSECT®ht4^^ifrU<Eiie^ORVEtflGUE (StoMrteBenehi NonWaWte.dhys.AawNial.J.l ffiesent 5 Shri8»e.Verma,coi.inselfbrtheaCTiellant. None for r^pondente No.1 S 2. Shri P. Dutta, counsetforr^pCTident No.3. (Passedon^llttayofA(»Wr2Mt9 ^^»t<ingenhancement ef a»(npenssrtlor>agafnst^he awau-^tteted ^W-2005p<®sedby TWrteenthAIA^t^i'.^eeidefrt^fa^ Trlbunai, (F^'.C.), Raipur<for shoit 'the^^fcunal') *»-dalnr easr No; •(8/20M where^ ai^ iitiereyNer ?u^ am 30,(^(^aton9ev^lnte(^^f%®ei'i »^p»annym'h®b^ aw indeelas< r- ^ i^l te "<<» 2. The brief facte of e csae aceordingto tq»pellantWftthat, on 13^^004, ttwa^ellantwhHeretumingftwnAi'ang tohfe vfllage I^F Ms cycte with hfe wife, m^ wtth an aeddent due to rash and neglgent drivk^ by the driver offfiie offiendlng vehlcle fFruck) bearing regi^ratipn No. C.G. 04Z©M336andpursiant to satd sroektentsusteined grievous Injuries. 3. The appellant preferred anflpplicaUen before the "Frtbunal onder Section '(66 ef the Motor AfeNetes Act, ^lalmtng ^mpensatton to the tene of Rs. 7^0,@OQ/- for the injunes su^alRetfby hhn wi aeGountofthe sald-aceident.: - 4. The Trtbunal, c»n a clwe SCTUth^ of ttw evtelm^ tod, mateilalptaeed^wdsubmisslCT^ftade.awwctodtotarfaniByrto't Rs. ^.OMfr a&GompenssttoninfaVGWOfthe^appet^^ with Inteiwst @^% PCT armunl frem ttwdrte <rf appBeatKxi tiltfl actual payment. 5. Leamed counsel <w Uie apt)erflarit weuld subitWb 8«* although the Do<^ h»rwtsbeen wambiacl In tWs n'MM»'jteft' tooklrig to the fK^thrt^e appeltantsui^ainedflrieve^ th)s£appeatm^^alteweeta^ &comp®R8aHonbfr«ittably? enhaneed. fi. 1 haveAear* the tearned <»unsdJOB the partlea wtf ^erused e record. 7. ^ The SypremeCourtlnease^Aff.StlTiC^.^ /totfel^ 1'eported In ^BOS) •12 ^S-ITOy ob^3 <t lii uncter: "6. After-hsarit®toan»K^counsailfoF th» daimant^i^macto^iatteinpt^supi^SwoKl^ , HighG<XBt ^findA^ttewwas^jM^BGduwfw^ " HighCourttorefyont^tlfeayiilstOBiffltgtefesue^lyQr. Sudhatar Rafcfy and enbanw the compensaft?n l^jf 1 troaUt^ the in^iy as psrnnaitsnt diaability to be 45 per cent. The H^ eourt" <»B»i(tt^ ovariooldng Vw faet that ©r.Sudtekar Red^'s medieri was rejeetod by 1^ Tt^rial^^^ ^ flffR'C examinafitm et^rtdoctw. "Eha^tfbunatteK<trtmi'^^ the ph^feal dfeabilily at 15 psrcent OR tee bMfe-^'ttw depwUon ^Dr.^M. Mteaimd awaKteda }i»feaffld<ali!- CTmpensa!^, T^ Hi^ ceurt sn^ InSilWurt^ same and^anhanrang ?the> compenstdon. dGoneequsrfly, \ro al|<wttnsapp!^,setasi<ig^WFtn^ps(^diff restore dh& awaid of <ha Gtoims I'fibimal. The cMnpenartkm awfanted ty the Trttnin^^^ 8 has not alreacfybeenWiBidraiwi." 8. The Supreme Court in a recent dkstum In caee of Rajesh Kumar allas Raju v. Yudhvlr Slngh and anotter, reportwl ift (2008) 7 8CC 305, retterated the same viw»wltti the foNewteg observationsi'nparall: "14. The ca'dteate te cpiesthw^t thls«»«>wwflMataact , aftw 4«ro^Batfc II i^ nrt Imwm ^to^whi^hsrtt^ Surgieon of^ h0spft^<roatiad the spBeltart. ^ basls, such a certificsrte was ^sssmdfaHQ ^wirsl jatlw^ht ^ acddent toolc place <& net laiowm.the airthw oftte said certMfeatBAad Betibea»®<amined.yVnlsssAieauthorof-3 the cerijffcate exainined Wdis^it WSK net admiaiyeiin: «<Wen(^ffltMi er^edisat>ili^at^B^^ on ^e A^s «rf tt» ^»ro^sions^;i0f Ae Mtorianen's eonnienslEtgn^WQtherwils&jsi^ taown^a&^irtiettisrJtoi^SiCiomprti^t^tssua^ s.; ilts8iBBn"do8s^8]Bfca(>p8tBt:thafeih8'coi'rtBnUons • f'';<^^,;3t»!rt(^,t ;^^';l,aW^^^ti»en^.rafe^'"i>el^ TntH^%ihaHigh®<Ki&^1^1'nbunatasaJsoth®H^ : ^Gc^ wef<^^ materials brought on acoitf l^ Jtte psu-fies. te atoence of any contefitjon hawng been raised in regwd to tiie appliraMity crf ttw Workmeii's eCTBpenMtiofl j»rtwtiteh, in oyr oplnton. »iE facie has noi aRpltegfion, We same, in our opinton, (sannol be permHtedla be raised fortie firrftime," 9. A DMsion Beneh of this HlghCwrtlRGasKofflRWtotp KiwmrSaftu v& -^i^pa Sate < aii<riiherMdeorder<tetecl 31st Mar^i, 2009, placing its reliaiweupon th&dicte oft S^Fane? Court in the cases refeirFed above heleKni»B%8a&under; "8. (nvtawefrfteabovequoted^taofBtSi^mceaurt - w\ ths cassKvSAf.SKRSv. P^'S'WssKa-fetSSe^^ai^ff^ •_ amf R^e^i Kaaw aHw f^wHi. W»^mflffift^<m< ; anMhw ^iip^ 8»e eeCTffit^ f>K*N^^^^^ 1'ribunal w A& absenca oK <B(amtoartien of ^ INctor ^ isaiing the<»rtifiGatofe neJth8Fad«ftfeitfbteJn8>ridwiG»flef (an be talwn into consideRittoni^ sUt^uiUw.w^^ - iBFa^iSssmentofrttii&cefflpensaBaninfliBGMe" ^ K; -; . 40. Aelmittedly, fte ;®lali'nant^•^is ®WRwteEloiro ^^ examine Doctorto-preve the 1 r, \^s .^^.- 4 evennodtsayittyeerfiftertehasbeenfitecttoprovetheresyltant toss. In w«wofthedtetaofttie above referred csees, ttie ii^ury reports, certificates produced, (n the ateence of examtaation of the Doctor issuing ttie injury reports, certlfieales are neWier admissible fn evidenee FioroBt b®terfwn uite comidera^on as suhstantive evidence for eRtencenwnt of compensrten In the case. — ' . . 11. fnajnotoraecAtentc(aim<»»e,asperSe^G(»1^ofthe Motor yehfeles A^, 1^8, iwhat Is hnpOTtant te ttaat #e <a?RqaensrtliOT toteav^Bded by 8»e(^fte/T^bwial should be justandpR^waOTipensationlnthe^aGts^indeiroym^anceef «achGase. isneftherabountynorcharity. 12. fforthe reasenrmaitioi^ hereh'^toew, t-«tonetfinct-any scope fiw «it>ameenwnt of e compwisatioi* awarded by the iTibunal. 13. THe appeal ffled by the appellant for enhancemert of the compensatlon is therefere UaMelo be and is her^y dfiBinf^ed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge r- ^ ^s t?