.TtlO IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. ^75 lllfilB B£i£ of2008. APPELLANTS/: Deepak Parera, son of Amulchand Parera, aged about 40 years, residence of Near Church Dalli Rajhara, Tahsil Dalli Rajhara, Di^trict Durg, Chhattisgarh. k RESPONDENTS ^.^"l^ ^'^' ^TI.--" '^'" .y' ^" -Versus- -1. Lekhram son of Danuram Halba, aged about 22 years, residence of Pathratola, Tahsil and Police Station Dondi, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Madan lal Jain, son of Khetmal Jain, residence of Durga Chowk Dondi, Tahsil and Police Station Dondi, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kamti line, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Through Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. Manjeet Singh, son of. Sampur Singh, residence of Civil Line Raipur, Present Address Bhatia Petrol Pump, Balod, Tahsil Balod, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ? 5. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Kamti Line Rajnanadgaon, Chhattisgarh, Through Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited G.E.Road, Power House Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. HC-22 ^n^T^r f<rlich 3T1^T 5h^icb ^Ra ^BNNS^ h^>^ ^ ^s? ^|<4id<lt, ^Til^^Ko, f^<ni^^< 3T^?T 'qsra? LO M©. S7S/68 •^ 200 ^l+ldl 5h^l<^ "1^8T" ^?T ^RTT^T "Hf^T SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICE N.Kl. AGARWAL 14-1-2010 Advocfcte respo|a.deiit ipplic4tion Shri O.P. Sahu, Shri P. Datta, Advocatefc Shri Paakaj Agrawal^ A{j None appears for Heard on I,A. no. 1, filiag fhe appeal. On due consideratfon, succeeded ia explaiaiag fhe Therefore, fhe applic4l appeal is coHdoned* Heard on admission, 2. AppeUao.t/clataiant compensation awarded by Tribunal (FTC), Balod (for ; 17-12-2007 passed in Claun| 3. As a^ainst the theappeUant/ clamiaatby of the Motor Vehicles Act fot motor accident on 25-8-200$. Rs, 10,050/-ascoxnpensatio|r 4. Shri Sahu, learaed argued fhat fhe Tribunal ha^ >c^ite, for appellaat. for the rcspondent No- 3. A{lvocate, for the respondent no. 5. No. 1, 2and4. a^pMcation for coiidonation of delay ia t|ie stiort compe^isatio; fijing CM^<n<fli +ii^^iT'?ftT^t <Fal^l< ^'37f^FT3^T I axa satisj&ed fhat fhe appellaat has elay caused in filing the appeal. is aUowed, Delay ia filiag the l^ seekmg enhaiicemient of fhe Additional Motor Accident Claims athe TribunaF) vide award datcd Case No. 16/2007. isation of Rs. 3,10,000/- claimed by a claim petition under Section 166 the iajuries sustamed by him in the i, fhe Tribunal awarded a total sum of loln c^unsel for fhe appellaat vehemently erred ia awardidg low compensation 1 '3:T7^T^T ^rlJ5h ^^I 5t)^i<=b ^n -r TacT ^||<41<rl<LI, ^Tl1<1^<o, f®|<ni^^< 3iri^ x^^ . ..y^A-..C^..^: S7.: N?'"""""""""'"""""""""^ 200 cy\ HW^\\ «)^|GD •^^T' 3TT^T'^TT^R ^Tf^ <=bl^t<n<flrl 'HFT^f 4 feT^ Tf^R5R ^T3^w^?r of Rs.10,050/- only, where^is the appellant/ claimant sustaiaed miiltiple serious injuries in t^ie motor accident 5. For fhe reasous besn^nowxi to tfae appeUant / dlaiaiaixt no doctor was examiaed before the Tribuiial to estabUsh the natiire of fhe injunes said to have bee^ sustamed by the appeUaat/ claimant ia fhe niotor accident aiid ftie fact that fhose iajiiries reszilted ia aay permanent disability. 6, The question whether clainiaat before the Tribiui^l without examining fhe Doctor who issued fhe certificate caa be the assessinent of fhe coia before fhe Apex Court m ft respondent-claioiar support fhe order o: fhere was nq justif be 45 per cent Thc error m overlookin! he medical certificate produced by the 'eMed upon as substaiitive evidexice for pensation came up for coxisideration ie case of A.P. 8RTC v. P. Tliiriipal Reddy, reported m {2005} li? SCC 189, wherein it was observed io; para 6 as nader : "6. After heariijig leanied counsel for fhe t who made axi attempt to the High Coiirt, we 3&ad fhat Lcatlon for tiie High Court to rely on fhe disabi^ity certi&cate issu^l by Dr» Sudhakar Reddy a4d eiihance tlie coiapensation by treating the mju|iy as permanent disabiUty to Hi^ Court cx>mm^ [ fhe ifact that Dr. Sudhalsar Reddv's niedical Tnbunal for non- ate was reiected bv fhe lation of that docton The Tribuiial has deterhimed the phvsical disability at 15 per cent on 1 coiapensation. Tl3 disturbmg ttue basj^ of fhejdepositio^ Dr. K.M, Mitra aiid awanled a iust aad fair [e Hiph Court erred in coiiipensation. e and enhaacio.R fhe sequently, we allow this [^t^f^ ^^ns^ '^ V JXI-HC-22- ^^y ^,. ^y 17 ~5^T ^iqi^^l^ ^Tll^^Ko, [^cnKiy S?^.57^/°8 HW<r\{ 9h+lich •^ 200 "I^^T' 3T1^T^T f^ri^'^TT^T 9b4-iich ^f^a ^ W^T'^TT^TT'^TT thle appeal^ set aside the the award of respondent-claimaai aniount of Tribunal, if it has no jixnpugned order aad restore Claims Tribmial. The is allowed to withdraw &e awarded by the |t already been wifhdrawn, coixxpejasation 7. The Apex Court m a Kumar aUas Rajui v, (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterat obseryations ia para 11 : i|ecent dictum in fhe case of Rajesh Yudliijlr SIagfa aad aaother, reported m ^d the same view wifh fhe foUowmg "11. The certifi< was obtauied after to whefher fhe CN toeated fhe appeUaiji certificate was accident tookr place the said certfc&catei Uiiless fhe author himself, it was n< tbat eifUer Whefher fhe disabilijty ftie basis of the p3 Compensation Act o|i is also not kaow^i competent to issue| does not appear before us had Tnbunal or fhe Higl]j the High Court, materials brought absence of aay regard to fhe Compensation has no appUcatten, cannot be permitike^ time." chi4i[<n<I1rt WTOf ^ f^L<i) <f^^i< '^37f;HH3n^T c^ate in question ia fhis case t^oyears, It is not kaowxi as ytU Surgeon of fhe hospital aijit On what basis, such a two years after fhe |s not kaown. The aytho'iLof had not been exanxmed. isslued bf fhe certi&cate examiaed t admissible in evidence, at 60% was calculated on fovisions of flie Workniexi^s ofherwise is not known, It as to whefher he was such a certificate. It even fhe contentions raised ttler been raised before ftie Court. The Tribunal as also fl|ierefore, proceeded on fhe record by fhe parties- In haviag been raised in of fhe Workmen's wjhich, ia our opinion, ex facie fhe same, ia our opinion, to be raised for fhe first dn contfention app^icability Actwlhich, I- [Tft^ ^Pg^ lu ^A"^ /'/'"s% \ ft.ia.ixI'HC"22: % •^,. ^^ ^•:-.^-^^- W^T^FT f^ri^^n^T 1 5h^ich ^rftn ^ ^ST ^ii^Knq, 's'rftwTS, f^cni^y 3TT^T ^T^, ^^<r^' ^S/ •'^ '200 *<WC^1 ^b^ich •f^ST' ^TT^T ^<TT^R'Hf^T 8. Iu the instaiit case, it i^ fhe claimaat spent ia facts aad circiiiastaiices of has not been examiaed to amount of Rs. 10,050/- has claimant, 9. In view of the above qi cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Kumar alias Raju v. Yudli^itir certi&cate produced before exaaiiaation of the Doctorl adniissible ia evidence nor substantive evidence for ass^ case, 10. For fhe foregoiag enhaacenient of fhe coinpens^tK 11. The appeal filed by fhe| of fhe compensation, hereby disiaissed. 12, No order as to costs. CM^<rt<fltl ^TR^f ^ ft1[^t <f^^i< ^ ^Tf^fH 3TI^T not proved as to how inuch amount treata|tent and, fherefore, considenng fhe off4e case, pardcularfy when fhe doctor ^rove fhe injuxy and certificates, aa t^een awarded as compeusation to the ^oted dicta of tfae Apex Court ia the Tjliiriipal Reddy (Supra) aad Rajeshi Sia.^hi aad another (Supra), the fhe Tribunal in fhe absence of issuiag fhe certfcficate is neither fcan be taken iato consideration as |;ssment of the compensation in the rea^ons, I do not find aay scope for iinpens^tion awarded by the TribunaL |appeUao.t/claima3it for enhaaceiaent thercfe|re, is liable to be djbsniissed and is Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge [- [^ y^