f IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.l .A. (0 N0. 9t^P/2008 APPELLANT Milapram Kashyap, S/o. Late Pardesi Lal, aged about 18 years, R/o. Through : Rupesh K'jmar Chandrakar, R/o. Tifra, Near Kali Mandir, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSU^ RESPONDENTS :1. L ^^^5^ '^^..-••"^^ - '^••"~ 3. ^ Santosh Diwakar, Diwakar, years, R/o P.S. & Kumar S/0. aged Village Tahsil @ Motu Parasram about 36 Dhangaon, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Driver of Tractor No.C.G.-ll- A/3583) Salguram Ratnakar, S/o. Ghanaram Ratnakar, R/o. Village Mekari, P.0. Asauta, P.S. & Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Registered owner of Tractor NO.C.G.-11-A/3583) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Sada Complex, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.), Through :Dlvisiona! Manager, Divisional Office-Opp. Rajeev Plaza, Bus-Stand, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) /-' •\ XI-HC—78 '7^1 "Ml'ijid'M, ar^lyi^, 1^'?iiyll< . ^MO...^.:..^^ SII^T'q^F (' an^T'wfnw vnsvwvw y •^W\^-i •RTOcJf -cf fe^ -(RR?TC ^•aifgtisn^r ,B. N.K. Aci •^•^ Shri Av'inash Chand Sahu, csj Shri Kaivan KaiamRar. couns unssl for me appetiant. for resoondent No.1. None for respondent No-2. Shri Hanuman Prasad Aflra^ai. counse! for the respondent No.3. Heard on !.A. No.01, appiicalion for condonation of deiay in fiiing the appeal. r^n fi^. Es& /'-rhni£i,TdsE"aA's^n 1 ^?D ifcatie:?ls;H th^f" ^h^i ^n^&H-a?^')' hsis^ i^U UUS ^^il ISSiU^S s^UUji; i ^;U Sjs^l^i^U 's.'UcS.l Ul^ tSpp^iJcts ii Ui^o i •;^;.'^^5^S--|^air^ ; ^°j ^£"',/^'lll'^l'"''i'^i*? AHli£: ?*l^l'Ci'J? ^•^i''S'.'Si^ ^"^ ^lH?^?"^ 'L1~.S •"n^^?" iucv^^y^u ni ^xpi^iHh'riy ins; uyi^y GSU5SQ ;H Tlllfig i.HS ^pp^Ss, merefore, the appljcatjon is aliowsil and the delsv caused in fjiira [he sppeal is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. This Is dalnr'ant's appea! for enr|ancement of compsnsation in the ijiward dated 31-08-2007 passed by IX |Additlonaj Motor Accident Cialms ^ribunal, (F.T.C.) Bilaspur (hereinafter^ referred to as' 'ths Tribuna!') in :laimCaseNo.16'2007, As against the compsnsation 4f Rs.4,10,000/- claimed by the IppeHanS'ciaiTiant by fiiing an appljcaiicin under Section 166 ofthe Motor ^ai^^^/^^-Ih -^. j^^ '^-"L>yl A^-.^ s ^*^ i •^ y^.^.^ i*k-<1'l ch 4i^cf ?**; i(c;];ii^^^ ^^i. i^i i?^ nijur^^ s^^?i^iuy< 36-05-2006. the Tribunal awarded bv him in the motor accident on an amount of Rs.26,000/- as ."•.Y \: ^ST '<)l'4lcf4, ®Tll'9'l<o,f6(dl+l^< 311^1 'V^SS ('pt^qyt) ai^i w (<-)i<* 'cTO s?R?r s»)*<ifli ^mnAH'^sifi^n ^li'inff ^vifh ^^f-^rA??* <-V; ^ {E^CF; i^Si.^SU'E ; Csi\^; i^4 'i'i'E.tE iii {i.S E ^wii. application. S. Shri Sahu, tearned counse! f the amount assesssd bv. fhe Trii: JnasiTiuch as the aniount has not b< serious injuries sustained and aiso not been examined to crove the inj looklng to the nature of injuries compensation awarded by fhe tesrne 7. I have heard learned couns. s ffL-yi'^i. 8. For ths rsasons best known te the doctor to prove the injuries sustai Q tl- ^ edt^i^^ 1-=(ftj' ffh-sf ^ SS;LS.i^!^ SCiV^ i,f ESil i,E' examlnation of doctor are neither ; taken into consideration as substan' compensation in the case. Sn view vlew o? the fact that nothing ha& beei amount awarded is inadequate, in t! the amount swarded by She tribunai i; 10. The Supreme Court in cas Reffety. reported in i2005i 12 S under: "6. After hearlng iearned claimant who made an atterrl <*l^id'ift?T *1H<nf ^f f^sil <p»l^j< ^? 3TfiCT SII^T |6% per annum from the date of the \JT the appeilant has submitted that I'unal Is shockinglv on lower side ^en awarded inconsonance with the ^ubmitted that aithoueh Doctor has j"es sustalnsd in the accidenfc but sustained &v the apoellant. the d Tribunal may be enhanced. ?A[--*.^ /* !' ,-^ f-E*. •I for the oarties and perused the the appeliant, he has not examined "ed by hjm., injury reDorts in the absencs of idmissjbie in evldence nor can be we evidence 'or assessment of the ^ f-f^ ^L £>-^J^*^-^^ 'ff./'zri^^l^ r-* >Jnt^ ?^^aj *^s^^ rEA; n i.n^ s?^ia.is?::/ pu^ui'^-H fwi istw .^.nu in i brouaht on record to show thst the ie considered opinjon of this Cfeurt, adeguate. e of V. P. CC-188. observed in oara S as counsel for the respondent- pt to support the order of the [ $*I gS'IRiailRl.ri.Tri^—FS/95—11 /2008—I,00,000. •^TT^-l-—— —n '"^ .' .3" SKA & ' v"'"-t ,s Y^/ %i'3^??^' ^=t •^ll'LII<rl'LI,yal^-'is, fs«'ii-Hll,< RI isi'n 311^1 ^il ft-ii* TiiiTsn^gnN? ^tet'sii^i ^ High Court. We tlnd that t High Court to re!y on the d Sudhakar Reddv ana' enharnl {-^tne fnjury as permanent ai; H'gh Court comrnitted gross Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medlc| 'ribisnai for non-exarriinatiosl has determinsd the physica!| basis of the deposition of Dr| and fair cornpensation. Thi the same and enhancing ths we alfow tnis appeat, set ^ restore ihe award of the C'la1 ciaimant is aliova'ed to withdrt awarded by the withdrawn." nai, *wid<i1-< KI*«-ff^ft^'d^R?R ^•giRm sii^i ere was no justification for the sabiiity certificate issued by Dr. ;e t'n®compensation by treating ibiilty to be 45 per cent. The 'rror in overtooking the fact that certificate was rejected by the of that doctor. The Tribunai disabiiify at 15 per cent on the K.M. Mltra and awarded a just High Court erred 'in disturbir'i comDensation. Conseauentlv, |sjde the impugned order and |ms Tribuna'i. The respondent- |w the amount of compensation if it has not aiready been The Supreme Court in a j'ecent dictum in case of aiias Raju v. Yudhvir pjngh and another, reported in iCC 305, reiterated ths same view with fhe follovi/in^ o&servations in para 1 "11. The certificate in quest|on in this case v/as o&tained after favo years. ft is not khown as to whether the Civii Surgeon ofthe hospita! treate!|i the appeilant. On what basis, such a certlficate was issuetf tvi'o years after the accidsnt took oSace is not known. Thfe author of the said certificaie had not been examined. Uni^ss the author ofthe certificate examined hlmself, it was Whether ths disabiii"/ at 60% rsot admissibie in evidence, was calcuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Vtforifnen's Compensat'on Act or otherwjse is not known. It is al was co.Tipetent to issue such appear that the contentions ral raised before ths Tfibunaf or W Iso not known as to whether he ^ certificate. II even does not Issd before us had either been |e Hish Court. The Tribunai as !!na<lir^#Tga"ii-wi iw-ii'pri'i—FS/95—11/2008—i,oo,ooo. ^. IV^-r-- II—. 't-) \. 1 ^••^ an^i'qirfeOTi' ^n 3?R?T a>*ii<;*» T^'SfPIRR,'S^T'T?, F»;1<11'M1< sn^r''^v (.f&y^) a!so the High Court, theref^ brought on record by She| contention having been rais^ the Vtforkmen's Compensatil facie has no appiication, the| permltted to be raised for th^ 2. A Diyision Bench of this] vs. sai iVIarch, 2009, placing its relianc^ in the cases referred above held "8. In view of the above ql the cases of A.P. SRTC v. Rajesh Kumar aliss Rajit (supra'), the certificate prod' absencs of examinatio" of Ul is neither ad.missibSe in evi consideration as subsfantive compensation in the case." 13. ln a motor accldent ciaim Motor Vehjples Acf, 1988, compensation to be awarded by and proper compensation in the case. it is nesther a bounty nor ct .14. For the reasons mentioneelJ scope for enhancement of the Tribuna!. qiiqfepjh •wraf'?fe^ <Iai<^i< iTsifiiHam^i 'e, proceeded on the materials parties. In absence of any in regard to the appiicabiiity of n Act which, in our opinion, ex iame, in our opinion, cannot be irst time." High Court in case of motker vide order dated 31 upon the dicta of Supreme Coun n as under: reted dicta of the Apex Court in '. Thirupsl Reddy (supra) and Yudhvir Sitigh and another ;ed before the Tribuna! in the le Doctor issulng the certificate dence nor can be taken into evidence for assessment of the case, as per Section 1 68 of the 'hat is smportaFit is that the he Courts/Tribunal shouid be just facts and circumstance of each arity. lar hsreinabove, ! do not find any compensatlon awarded by the ywfsv ^vynaiinst-awv— FS/9S—11/2008—i,00,000. M ~s^ '^ww<i,w^ww, hwwy. \^....^!'.^...MS/SS.... sfi^r Tra^ ('jtia'i'i?) '^Tl^ii^ 311^1 !**<i* Kvr TCTOR Dfttl 311^1 ^' <*i^i<'<<i)-i 'wreif 'ff^vS ito5R ^sifimCT^i 15. The appea! Rled by the ^ppeflant for enhancement of the compensaiion is therefore liable order as to costs. o be and is herebv dismissed. Sdi- N-KAgarwal Judge