IN THE GH COURT QP JUDICATUR OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M. A. © N0. 4-^ ^1- /2008 APPELLANT ^fClaiment) 1, S/o Umashankarjaiswal, Aged about 18 years, R/o-Kumhar para, Jarhabhata Tahsil & Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS z~ R.B. N8. pi:S£S^ p^sti- Prashant Sharma, Aged about 26 years, S/o Banneshawar shanna R/o - Chingraj para, Sarkanda, Tahsil & IMstt-BUaspur (C.G.) B^meshawar shartna Aged about 65 years, S/o Tileshawar sharma R/o' CMngraj para, Sarkanda, Tahsil & Distt< Bilaspur (C.G.) MEMP OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTER ACCIDENT VEmCLEACT.1988 ^ shn -^r:!.^ '..'...-••^w1 3??^T ^ST'f^tN^ ^TO ^^ ^t^ic^ 11 ...„. 1 •^Si -?qm^FT, ^'H4i%, ^l^l-M^ rA^c^^-V^70< l^TOW%??T^ •^200 sn^T^wC^p^) I^TW^n^W ^rafepfrT Tnq^t'^fs^ ^n?R ^stfTOOT^T SB.* HON. JUSTICfc H.H. 18-9-2009 Sl-ui Hemaiit Gupta{, Advocate, for fhe appellant. Heard on admissio4. Cl 2. Appellant/ claiiiiai^ compensation awarded b: iauiis Tribunal, Bilasp] award dated 27-2-2008 pl 3. As agaiiist tlie com it is seelmig eiiliancement of the y the IInd Additional Motor Accident, ^ir (for shoi-t <<the Tribi.mal") vide ^ssed in Claim Case No. 37/2007. )ensation of Rs.2,70,000/- clauiied by the appellant/ claima|nt by filing a claiiii petition mider Section 166 of tlie M^tor Vehicles Act for tlie injunes sustained by him in the[motor accident on 13-3-2006, the Tribunal awarded a total ^um ofRs.28,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of appMc^tion as compensation. 4. Leamed counsel fo^ tlie appeUant vehemently ai^ued tliat tiie Ti-ibunal has eiT^d in awarding low conipensation of Rs.28,000/- only, wherea^ tlie appellaiit/ claimaiit sustained serious uijuries in fhe mot^r accident. 5. For tlie reasons bestjknown the appeUant / clamiant no doctor was examined befbre the Tribunal to establish the nature of the mji.iries sa^d to have been sustained by the ^n^i^ ^^ ii^Ti-^^Rt^ir^—?;s/95—11/2008—1,00.000. »^sSa^_<i»^^£iS!esea&Ss^s ^"^? ^{^Kn^, ^nl^4i<o/ f^<ni^^< •g^^gT%»i?j^ "^200 ^?^?'^yf^N? Wff W^T^^W ^ ^T^T ^qFr (^ql^^4) l^cHW^ti^ 3:H^?T thb appellaiit/ claimant in those mjuries resLiited in 6. The question whefhj motor accident and the fact that piy permanent disability. ir the medical certillcate produced by the claimaat before Doctor who issued the substantive evidence for canie up for consideration A.P. SRTC ¥.P. Thirapal] 189, whereiii it ¥/asobsei^ tljie Tribuiial without exaiiiining tlie ^ertt&cate can be relied upon as t|ie assessment of the compeusation |before the Apex Court in the case of I Reddy, reported in (2005| 12 SCC "6. After heari|ig respondent-claim^ to support the oiji find that there •%t: Higli Court to relyj issued by Dr. Sucj the compensatio^ perinanent disabipty High Court overlooking fhe Reddv's medical the Tribunal for phvsical disabilitv of the depositioi awarded a iust High Court erred we allow this app( order mid restorg ^N^pN ^TR^f ^f tt^ Tf^?R ^T'srfiw an^T ed in para 6 as under: ig learned comisel for the mt who made an attempt der of the High Court, we |as no justification for the on the disability certificate Ihakar Reddy ancl enhance by treating the injuiy as to be 45 per cent The gross eiTor in cojbiniitted fact. that Dr. Sudhakar bertiflcate was reiected bv non-exammation of that doctor. The Tribiiiial has determined the atj.5 BercentQnfhebasis of Dr. K.M. Mitra and fid fair coiapensation^ The iii distm'bing the saaie and enhancing the cotnpensation. Consequently, ^al, set aside tlie impugiied the award of the Claiiiis ^T<?f€N^.^q' ?{^FfT^T <1 -I;S/95—11/2008—1,00,000. -3^E{ ^)|<L)j<'t<ll, ^nl'M4!®,f®!^l'yll< ^TraHr%^i^ g^-q?^C^3^q) ^^T^Tl^N ^TW^RtWRt^ ^RTm^R^3i??^T ••^200 ^T?ife7^ ^?H^f-i?'fexA^^ ^^Rm3Tr^? ^lNlii"^ 7. Tribunal. The re^pondent-claimaiit is allowed to withdraw th^ amount of compensation awarded by the TFribuiial, tf it has not already been withdrawn.1 The Apex Court in 4recent dicttim in the case ofRajesh Kumar a2ias Rajii v. Yu| in (2008J 7 SCC 305, following observatlons in ftll. The cer| case was obtamej known as to whe1| hospital treated basis, such a cei after the acciden The author of dhvir Siaa^i and aaother, reported reiterated fhe smiie view with the bara 11 : |ificate ia question in this jd after two years. It is not ler the Civil SLirgeon of the fhe appellant, On what ficate was issued two yeai's took place is not knonm. le sald certificate had not been examined. PUnless the author of fhe certificate ex^ led hunsetf, it was not admissible in levidence. Whether the disability at 60% ^as calculated 011 the basis of the provisic|ns of the Workmen?s Conipensation Ac^ or otherwise is not kuowu. It is also not kn^vn as to whether he was competent to issu^ such a certificate. It even does not appear tjhiat the contentions raisecl before us had eittier been raised before the Tribunal or the Hlgh Coml. The Tribunal as also the High Coutt, therefore, proceeded on the materials br<|>ught on record by the parties.In absenc^ of any contention havin^ been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen)'s Co|mpensation Act which, in ST^^|^^^¥i^i^T<Wrf^t^—FS/95—l 3 /2008-1,00,000 ^n^i^i Riiw WIT 3?ff^T sFRN? '3^r ^iNKn^, ^Til^^^o, M<ni^^< ^ WHdTwn^ '"^ 200 ^I^T Tra'sF .(^f^^?) ^HWH^^T^ OI.IT optnion, ex fac^e saine, in our opiniojn be raised for the Tirit thlt a^ .€^5 8. In the mstant case, Tribunal has obsei-ved disability. It 1s not proved remained in hospital, and, circumstances of the case, not been examined to pro^| amount of Rs. 28,000/- ha| to tlie clalmant. 9. In view of the above the cases of A.P. SRTC v.l Rajesh Kismar a!ias Rajul (Supra), the certificate pro<| abseuce of examluation of neither admissible in ev| consideratiou as substaiitN compensation m tlie case. 10. For the foregomg rea^ enhancement of tlie c< jii para 8 of the award^ .leamed tiie appellaat has not proved to how many days tiie appeUant t^ierefore, considering tlie facts and Iparticularly wheu the doctor has ^e tlie injtiry aud certiflcates, an been awai'ded as compensation <^S^?CT<iIl 'RR^lf ^ fe^t> <M-^B< ^T^^H^T^i has no application, the , cannot be permitted to time.?? (|uoted dicta of fhe Apex Coi.u-t in P. Thirupal Reddy (Supraj and ¥. Yudhvir Singh aad another )<|luced before fhe Tribunal m the tjie Doctor issuiiig tlie certillcate is rildence nor caa be taken into evidence for assessment of the |ons, I do uot find any scope for awai'ded by the TribLmal. :ompei"i|satlon ^W^A^^ ^"K^ <1«1-!K'IM—FS/95 —11/2008—1,00,000. sn^i^Ti^F ^?T 3?I^TiCTN? -< ^—- '3~^[ r^tl^tld<Lt/ ^Ti1<ri'ii(o, [Gi<ni<y^< NINdS'SR^WK' ^200 3TI^T XR^( ^qt^qq^) '^ITW^fer^H^ 11. The appeal filed| enhancement of the dismissed and is hereby 12. No order as to costd Ghl^id^^ 'WT^f ^ ^Sf lf^$l< ^^tfmsn^T by tlie appellant/claimant for snsation, therefore, is liable to be con|ipensation <ftismissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^