HKHKXroRTOraHH&TCTBOAaiA'KBIUUSEOTte MBSC.A3RramLIK>.336ilEa»lI> APPBaiAKT CLAIMMlT SESI>CUnD@N" & 3. 4; 5. Vistuni RtunaE Dewaagaa, SQB, of Budhu Ram Dewaa^aa, aged^ 34^ years, R/o AdivasiGOlorqr, Kusha^mr, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Ite^nir,Distfc Rdpur (CG) Venuu . Shekh Hffldar, aged about 25 ^ars, son of Shefch Akhtar, Musatoaan, R/o near Khursyar gate, RajeBdran^ar, Bhilai,Distt.Dms(CGy Navipdi-a 1^1 Singh, SOIL of Sardar Pcatap Stogb, R/o House No. 391, Chundi Road, KailashnagaE, Btdlal, Distt. Duis{GG) : The National fasinance Go. Ltd. (hrou^-Dimsional Maaagep, Dnd^Mi OfBcer, Madiaa Bulldiag, G.E. Roaid, Raipur, Dtett Raipur (CG) SpeGiaI Blast Limitet, fhrough ManE^n^IMi'et^ NatthantBuIWtog, Sfaastri caiowk, G.E. Rctt^, Raipur^ District Raipur(!3G) The onexital fosuranee Co. Ltd. throu^i Divisional Manager, DivisiiEHi Officer No. 1, Jafl Rbad, Kactlhara Chowk, Raipur(CO) SBi- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRBSEaiT:- . : ' - " ShriAdilya Khare, Advocate, far the aiq)e]tent ORAL ORDBR (29-3-2010) PerN.K. AflBUEinil.A Heard oiiadmfesiQn. 2. Appellant/ clafcaant-is- seeldi^ enhanceaiait (rf' the compensatlon; awacdeA by (he Xfte Addttaanal Motar Accideirt£teiDttsTiabuDal^Rai|nffi^shoTt' eTE^^ vide aroarddated 30-1-2010 passedinGlatmCase No. 46/2009.- 3. AsagamsfethecompensatiQiiMRs.l3,50,000/-claimedby the appellant/ clrfmant by filjng a clataa petition imder 6. Section 166offheMot£a-VehiclesAGt, 1988forthelnjuries'' sustained by him ui the motor accidenton 29-4-2008, titie Tdbunal awsTded a total siun of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. Shri Khare, leamed comisel for the appeUant veheniently argaed fhat the Tribimal has encd m awarding low compensation ofRs.l,000/-orityforthe injuries sustained by fhe daimant in the said aceident, whCTeas the appellant/ claiinant sustained inultiple seriousi inji^es in fhe motor aaddent. For the neason&it>est Imown tbe appellant / daimant no doctor was examinett befiwe fhe Tritninal to establlsh Ihe nature ofthe injuries ssad to have been siistained ti$K fhe appellant/ claimant in the motor araadent and fhe fiact (hut those injinies resulted in any permanent disabUily. The question whether the medlcal certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribuiial without examiniTtg fhe Doctor who issued the certificate ean be relied upmi as substantive eridence fin- the assessffleiit of the compensation came up for consideration before (he Apeai Court in (he case of AJP. SICTG w. P. TOlfaapalsRedd^ repcated ia (200^ 12 SGC 189, wherem 4t was inpara6 asunden - "6. -Aftra- tearii^ teimed; counsel faf the respQndjent-claiiiaEuat wfao aiflde a&^ ,^^ support Ifae oTd^ of Itoe H^i Court, wse flada ttefe there was IK) jiistification SH' fhe Hij^i CdtB* 'to B^ on (he disa.biBty CCTtfficate issued; lyj? Dr; SatUiafcm-- Retiktyand enhancefhe coinpCTisaticailytareatmgltie uijury as permmiCTit dlsability to be 45 pra-Gent. 3 S ISs&t Court coBimitted eross errorin ovra-Ioo^nfi tte fact that Dr. Siirthafcaf Reddy^s medteal ceTtaBcate ^as reieetied bv ttie Tiitnmal fi>r non-^xamulati<Ma of that doctor. The Tribunal has deteranined the? ohvsical disaInMtv at 15 oer ceiit oa the basis <rf tfae deoositiQn of Dr. K.M. Mitoa aiad awardied .a iiKtaad fajr conrDeDsatioia. The Hifdi Gotut erred ia. djsturlane the same and enhandile ttie^ comDensatimi. Caaseauenllv. we allow IIris appead, set a^ide (he ipap.i^ieAoixteE arut restore && amanpd of the Ciai&s Trihucal. 'Ehe re^xmdait-daimairt 1&. allowed to witdidraw the aniQi.mtof com^iensatiaEt awarded ty the Tribuiiat,, if has not ateeady txerat withdEEmn." » r—.^ l a.^ 8. ^' 9. 'HIC Apex Coint ia a receirt dictum in ttie case of R^< Rumar aBaa R^ju v. Yudlwte Sla^- aaA oaotehw, reported in (2008) 7 8<X? 308, Triter^ed the saaae view withfhe firitewlngobsCTvationslapffltt 11: " 11. The certtficate in questtonin thte ease was otrtained after twro jneais. It fe iiot knotrax a»to ; whether fhe CavU Surgeon of fhe hoSpital tEeafied: the ^ypellant. On what btois, such a certificate , was issued tiffo years aftor the accldeiit tookpkuee - is not laiowii. Tbe authoF of fhfi sahl certiffisate , - had iiot been examined. Uidessthe aufhtxrofliie certiflcatff ftxamlnRrl Tiimself. It Was not admissibte in evldence. Whefher fhe disabitay at 60% WE calciilated on fhe baste of fhe provistons of tiie Workmen's Compensatkm Act ar ofherwlse is not known. It is also not toaown as to whether tve'was competentto issue such a certtBcate. K even does iiot appear that fh& contraitfoito i^dsett befeEe us had eitha- been rmsed before fhe 'Mbiiaal a" ttie High Court. The Tnbimal as alsp the H^b Court, therefbre, proceeded CTI the mat@l£dst)co»^rt:oa record by the parttes.i'IaetfasenGetrfai^coFrteiiyGa" ^Ii£nm^be%raisedmregard^to^tKe tq?plicabil^x)if ' fhe Workmeiris Gkanpensatioa Act wluch^in. o'ln' t opinion, ex &de has no s^lfcation, the saime»<int. our opinion, caimot tie penoitted to be raised fin- the Srstlime." < In flie instant case, tt is not proved as to bew laaay days fhe appeBant Temainedin hospital. It isalsonotprcwed as to how much amount he spent in treatnaeat and, thCTefoEe, considering the facts and drcumstances of the case, partlcularly when the doGtor has lurt been exaauned to prove the iajury and certificates, an amount d'Rs. 1,000/- has been awarded as compensatioa to (he clalnaant. In view of fhe above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in fhe cases of A.P. 8RTC v. P. niirupal Itedi^(Sup») ai^, Rtderit KnnuuF dtta»Rtdu v. 'nuUiwtr Slnrfa;anA<ui <dwr (Supr^, the cerOficate produced befare tiie Ttfemml in fte absence ofexaminatlonofthe Doctor issufaigfhe certffieate 1s iieifher admissiNe in eviritenee nar can be talssi tato consideratton as substantive CTidenc& fta- assessmeofc -of the compensatian in fte case. 11. 12. For fhe fiaregoix^ reasons, I do not find any sccq enhancement of fhe coxnpensation awarded by tfae Tribunal. The appeal fited by the appeBant/cdaimaat for eiihanceanent offhe compensadon, tih.eTefoi'e, is Mable to be dismissed and 1s herety dlsmissed, No order as to costs. __- Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Jui^e &/