^ 'r?^T,. "A ^J^ '^ ^,. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.rONO. ^0^-- /2010 L ^- ^l APPELLANT CLAIMANT ^•^ ^/^" ^•^^' ^^^, ^•'" RESPQNDENTS NON-APPLICANTS m^w^ Kamlesh Kumar, Son of Sohan Lal, Caste Harijan, Occupation- ^ Agriculturist and business, R/o. Village Kusmushi, Chowki Basdai, P.S. 85 Tahsil- Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS Punamchandra @ Mannu, Son of Mahabir Prasad Goyal, aged 27 years, R/o. Village Bhaiyathan @ Jhilmili, Tahsil Surajpur, District Suguja (C.G.) (Driver & Owner) 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Throuhg : Branch Manager, Branch Office, Satimudi Chowk, Raigarh, District Raigarh(C.G.). (Insurer) MISC. APPEAL U/S. 173 OF M..V.ACT FOR ENHANCEMENT S 1 w^ l;iil:l ^ w:m^i Ijli' NGHGtol^OR^HAT^SQARtt^ jMISC,Ai^EAl.'.fOy^NQ.:^2:;'OF201^:.^,i.;;^ -.AEREtAAMT/^ Gfc.AlMANT RESI^ONOENTS ^ON-:,'''..-l'l'^i^'.'ll:'':1/^^^^ ::MPPL.IGlNT$' Kamles^Kumar .Versus^^ •' Pynarncttahdra anbtSier. Nannu and ;APPEXI-?lllt3te^lSi<^BN;;173^F-THE.MG^O ^AC!TI:::M'::-'.^-'...'!:::-:'-<.1^^ fSlriaieBenGh?Moh'bleMF.N.K.AdarvmL<l,l IPresenf ShrtA.K. Shuki|,coun^^jajor^^ ^Oh6s{i,^couosei^f©rthe-:appetiant.:.:'.]• • c • ^^::; ^'., ':,-.1..: ^.'-•l'-:,^;^i^riilt^-iiiI''Qi6^ ^asse^jT^th|day,^augu^,'2&^);.;::'':':^'[ l;The."instanf;,appeai':l1i,as.'been:,|^eferred,^ for seei<in^ ehhancement of ^ompensatlon agamst the award datedQ6-02-201QpassedbyFirs^A^di.Motor^ccJde^^ Trtbunal, Surajpur Qistric^ ^r0uja;(for short^^^^'^ ciaimcaseNo.Q1/2Q06wherebyan^wbereW R& 4,OQ(»- along with i^ beenawardedaseQrnpensation^^ 2. Tl^ bri^ that,on 1^02^05, th&^^^^^^^ Kusrnusi toiBhaiyathanNongwJt^w aspilliQn nder pri Boxer IVIotorcycle, metwith^^^^a^ TruckbearlngregjstrationN&.C.G.15-^09^ dueto^^ra negiigent dnving by thedriver ofthe sffending ye ^ and pyrsuanttQ^aid accident.ttieappeilantsust&inedgrie^ ^jnjuries,'-.;.;l\;;:^,,^1..1'' 3. The appeliarrt Tribunal under Sectipn 1€Qof the Motor ^el'ijcles Act; Giain'ting M. cQmpensatipntQthe^uneofRs. 1,00,000^- fortheinjurjes sustained byhimonaccountofthesajdaccjdent. 4, The Tribunaj, on a clbse scrutiny ^ materiaj piaced an9 submJssions made, awarded totaJ^amount ofRs.4,OOOAascompensatJonalongwithinterestatRs,100C^ jn lumpsum has been aw^ed as^^^^ in favour of :the:appeliant;"^,;:.'l-:1'',,;-'^ 5. Learnecl counsel for the appeilant wQuid submlt that aithough the Doctor has riot beenexamined but looki^^to fact that tne appellant sustairied grievous injury, and ampunt awandedbytheTr3l3unalisshocl<}ng}yGnlbwersjcle,tttisappeal may i3e ailowed ahd tti6 compensation fnay be suitably enhanced.,'.::. ;;1;./ :.'';.-,::: • -. . '.:.'"' -. 1-J. 6. 1 l^ave Heaixl the learned counsel appearing^^^ fo appetlant and perused the record. | 7, T'heSupremeC^ Reddy, reported jn (2005) 12 SCG-189, obsen/ed in para 6 as under::' ..,•'-,:•'.:;•. '"•'.<,s "6. After hearing learned CQunsel fe Glaimant who made an attemj3t to support theorder the High Couit; We find that there \^s n6 Ji^ for the High Courtto relyoritl^ disabilit^ce^ byI3r.SudhakarRedd^an^e^ bytreatirtgthefryyryasipermanentdi^ c6nt. The Bigh Court committ^ overlooking thefaGtthat Dr. Sudhakar F^dy's certificate was rejecfed by^^^^^^^ examihatJQn^thatdQeaor.T'h^^ the physica! djsabiiityat 15 percertt 6n the basjs^^<^ deposition ofOr. K.M. Mitra and awarded ajustan^^ compensation. Ihe^^^^^^^H same arul enhancingtheco we ailow this appeaf^ restore the awar^ of th©^^ respondent-ciaimant jis aJiowed to wthdraw the amount of compensatjon awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not alreadybeenwithdrawn;" { Q. The Supreme Court in a rec^nt dictum in case of Rajesh KumaraliasRaju v. YudhvlrSingh anclanother, reportecJ'jn w m (2008)7SCC305,feiteratedthesame^ ^observati.ons1n'para;^^'::^::;;;'.'l.^':^,;i.^i^ "11.The®ertificat&inquestionm^^^^t^ aftertwo^ars.ltisn^^^^^^^^ Surgeon<rfth6hospitaltrea^^ basis, such a c^rtificat^^^w ;,^^a(^idenf^oj(^pIace'iSI;noi',krK)^^ certifiGate had notjsteen exarTlined. Unie^i^ thec^ifi<^teexdmined himself.it v^notacjmijssibleih ewS^w^.f Wfn^^ on the ^basis ^ the p^ C^rnpen^ion^orottierwis^isnot^ ^ot^n&wnras^ ^a ^erUficate. (t ^e^ ccmtentions raised before^^y^ befbre the T'ribuhai or^he Hlgh Gourt. TheTriburial a&^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ also the High Cpurf, ther^ materiaisS>roughtcmr^Fd^^ any TOntention h&ving Be^ applicabjljtypfthe^V^ jriouro(3iniori,©xfaciehasnbapplicatio^ o^ropinioniiartnotbeperrNtted^tobeT^ •ijm^'>,.:^^',?:1'^ 9. A DjvisionB^nchof'thlsHjghCourtirilcase of ^racfeep Kumar Sahu vs. San^ ^a/w & ano^er vide order dated 31^ Narch, ^OOQ/^^^^^p^ Supreme Gourt |n the oases;refenBd above h 'undeF:' • •;1:" :1-:''..'" .: :1'-11^ .'•r:,' ^ '.,.y •: •.- •,•''',.."':11:'.'/.' ^ '• 1''. • :1 ;;;1' ^. ,1; '.-4;.,' "8. In view of the aboye quot^^ CQUrtintheGases^^ (siipi^atKiRafeshKamaraliasR^ anrfa/j6 er(5{^;^,thecertjfic^^^p^ Tribunai in the absence of examjnation of the Doctor jssuing She certificat^ js neither admjssible in eviclence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence fbr assessment of the compensafion in the .case.":-.::: ::::.':i:-:'1.-1' 10. Admittediy, the ciajroant in hjs own^^^^ w^ examjne Doctor;to prove the injuFy systained jn the acciderit and IQ prove the resultarrt loss. In yiew of the djcta^ N above referred cases, the injury reports, certiTic^tes produced, in the absenc^ of examjnation ofthe Doctor^^i reports, certifjcate&are neifher admissjbie in eviidence npr cari s^^ ^IM '4- be taken into consideratjon as substantive evidence for enhancementQfcQmpensatJoninthecase. 11. in a motqr accident clajm case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal shouid be justand propercompensationjnthefactsandcjrcumstanceof eachcase.EtisneitherabQuntynorchan^ 12.FQrthereasonsmentionedhereinabove,{donotfSndany scope fbr enhancement ofthe compensatiqn awardecj by the Tribunal. 13. Theappeal flied bythe appeljant forenhancement ofthe compensation jstherefore liabietQbe and is herebydismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^ '^'