^, 0 IN THEJ1IGH CQURT^F CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -/'^ . \^-0->\/20Qg •ina1 '' •? f^ ^-i i;B:> -^? uf il ii Sti MISCAPPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR ^•^^^y- p(ese!>»B u' -,Y,^\-^-I DRIVER OWNER INSURER 1. 2. 3. Suhaga Bai W/o Shri Viashram Bhaina, aged about 60 years, R/o Villager- Budhikhar, P.S. Masturi , District Bilaspur (C.G.) Purshottam Lal S/o Baldev Prasad s/o Pantaidih, Chowki Pachpedi, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Shailesh Kumar Gulhare S/o Not Known, R/0 Mannu Chowk, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. , through Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chhattisgarh Complex, Telephone Exchange Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ComDensation Claimed RS. 1. 65.000/- Connpensatibn awarded Rs. 9,000/- Appeal Valued at Rs. 1.56,000/- ^qraT^TT, '^ftWTS, fc<<'ll-L114,< M.A-Cc^/^o. ^o^; an^! 'q^r ('i?l3<i^ll) •^200^ wftpte id^TBtlN; 'l^--^ •^^^^•Wff.^sf'^f^-^ TOiiwaiCTsn^r Shri A.L. SingFoul, counsei ffcrthe Heard on S.A. No.01, applic{ 64 days in preferring the appeai. 2. On due consideration, ! arrj succeeded in explainina the cai satisfied that the appetlant has se of delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the appiication is allow^d and fhe de!ay in preferring the appeai ;s cona' 3. Heard onadmission. 4. This is ciaimant's appeai fore award dated 10-04-2009 passed i^y Sixth Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bllaspur (hereinaft T.iiici4-) 'wwif •? re<^ xfSre^n iTStRnan^i appellant. for condonation of delay of ihancement of compensatiori in the sr referred to as 'the Tribuna!') in -<3ialm Case No.127/2008 whereb^j and whereunder an amount of Rs.SOOOi'- has been awarded by the Tribunai for the injuries sustained by the sppeilant in the accident dated 1 ^-08-2008. 5. Shri A.L. Singrou!, tearned coijnsel for the appellant has submltted that She amount assessed by the Tri ss much as the amount has not be buna! is shocklngiy on iower side in en awar-ded inconsonance with the I injuries sustained nor medical btllsi produced by the appeliant were .considered and aiso submitted th^t although Doctor has not been examined to prove the injuries sust^ined in the accident but looking to Er-"%A»!Elf*l(l'.,5-nt?-fto-ri MWf'ira gara •uWRiKra^iwra—rs/95—ii/Zuos—i ,011,000. XI-HC—78 iRB^I'R'TO? wn 3ii^n'aniR; 3^ "4l'4lc)<), ©Tily'ie,fayiy'j.i /vi .A-(£.) ^° . /)-o^/ s^sfi 'v^s (t°li^'al<Ef) ^TOR':RS?a an^i -9-- adm the nature of injuries sustained awarded by the iearned Tribuna! rrf; 6. I have hesrd learned the record. 7. For the reasons best-1 examineo' the doctorto prove the iif it is settied !aw thaS examination of doctor is neither into consideration as substantivt compensation in the case. in viei( view of the fact thaS nothing has b4 amount avi/arded is inadequate, in| the amount awarded bv the tribunal 9. The Supreme Court in c( Reddy, reported in (2005) V. under: "6. After hearing leamecj ciaimant who made an aiN' High Court. We find that • High Court to reiy on the Sudhakar Reddy and enhar| the injury as permanent dis High Court committed gross) Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medi Tribunai for non-examsnatiol has determined the physica| basis of the deposition of Dj and fair compensatton. Thifc ^>i^t?i^i *ii+«Ti1^f fs^ <n*i^T< ^affiRan^i by She appetfant, the compensation |ay be enhanced. - :ounsel for the appellant and perused jknown to the appeilant, she has not Ijury sustained by her. pie injury reports in the absence of ilsslble in evidence nor can be taken evidence for assessment of the. |v of the settled position of ia'w and in }en brouaht on record to show that the the considered opinion of tnis Court, is adeauate. ^se of A.P. v. P. Thimpal iCC-189, observed in para 6 as counse! for the respondent- to support the order of the tjiere was no justlfication for the (^sability certificate issued by Dr. |ce the compensation by treating ^abitity to be 45 per cent. The |error in overiooking the fact that |al certificate was rejecied by the ioh of that doctor. The Tribunal disability at 15 per cent on the it. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just Hsgh Court errsd-tn'dsstufbing •^ XI-HC—78 SiI^fTSit ~5^ "41'41d'i), ©flly'Ko,[°«'liy^< . M.^-CC')^...!,^^ sn^T'q^R' ('ipf^si^t;) the same and enhancing we allow thls appea!, se| restore the award of the ® ciaimant is allowed to awarded by the Tribun^ withdrawn." 10. The Supreme Court in 7 SCC 305, reiterateft observations in para 11 : ^ recent dictum in case of Rajesh >r Singh and another, reported in the same view with the foilowing "11. The certifjcate iri qu after two years. It is Surgeon of the hospitai such a certificate was took piace is not known. had not been examined. examined himself, it Whether the dteabHity at S' the provisions of the VI otherwise is not known. It was competent to issue appear that. the cpntention raised before the Tribunal aiso the High Court, ther^ brought on record by th) contention having been raij the Workmen's Compens^ facie has no application, tS^ permitted to be raised for tlj 11. A Division Bench of thj Sahu vs. Sanipa Safl '6bltf^4t;i TW^ ^f 'f^St <f^^R ^sifgiisil^l he compensation. Consequenfly, aside the Impugned order and ^laims Tribunai. The rsspondent- the amount of compensation if it has not a!ready been in this case was ncjt known as to whether the Ci'/il tre^ted the appeliant. On what basis, is^ued two years after the accident IThe author of the said certificate ilinless the author of the certificate w4s not admissible in evidence. i(l% was caiculated on ihe basis of forkmen's Compensation Act or |s also not known as to whether he silch a certificate. !t even does not raised before us had ejtfter been l>r the High Court. The Tribunalas 'r^fore, procseded on the materials thle parties. In absence of any i^ed in regard to the appiicability of i^tion Act which, in our opinion, ex tile same, in our opinfon, cannot be lefirsttime." |s High Court in case of Pradeep IL' & anoffiervide order dated 31s ^ ~^3S^"~ 2^f-HC—78 ^qiSII^igisWi' •» Kvr 'TSTT<ll'i)l<n'4,®-d1'M'IS,[sKII'My f^| .A. C.CJ) ^o .l^-o'} ef sn^; iT5w ('yij'N'^) 4 March, 2009, placing its relian( in the cases referred "8. !n view of the abov^ the cases of A.P. SRTC ^. Rajesh Kumar alias Raj^ (supra), the certificate absence 'of examination o) is neither admissibfe in consideration as substanti\|' compensation in the case." quoted dicta of the Apex Court in . P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) and ?aji|( v. Yudhvir Singh and another projduced before the Tribunai in the the Doctor issuing ths certificate fevidence nor can be taken • into te evidence for assessment of She aitrs 12. !.n a moior accident clail Motor Vehfcles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded and proper compensation 'm case. It is neither a bounty nor 13. For the reasons mentiot scope for enhancement of fcfy Tr 14. The appea! filed by thei order as to costs. No order asto cb(<4[d4lTi TTR^ff ^ 'feT3t ^l+$i< ^sifinai^r e upon ths dicta of Supreme Court in para 8 as under: the case. as per Section 168 of the what is important is that the the Courts/Tribunal should be iust facts and circumstance of each i.ed hereinabove, 1 do not find any compensation awarded by the the appeiiant for enhancement of the to be and is hereby dismissed. No frosts. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge K^