"^'' INTHE HIGI-ICOURT QFCHHAT'T'ISGARHATBILASPURTC.G.i) M.A. fCyNO.yyO OF 2007 ^ APPELLANT c LAIMANT yeerasai Son ofSitaram, Caste Koir, ag6d aboyt 50 years, Occupatjon Agriculture, Resident pf Village Parri, Police Station and Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). : VERSUS Dev Prasad Son ofjGopinatb, Caste Gond, aged about 28years, Occupation Driver, Resident of Navapara Ambikapur, PoSt, Police Station and Tahsit Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.). (Driver) Harpal Singh..Babra Son of Tejpal Singh, aged about ^27 years, Resident of Namnakala Ambikapyr, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). .,,..'• (Owiner) • ~ " ^. 11 : ' v 1^'::1,: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF TME MOTOR VEHICLE AGT, J^88 FORENHANCEMBMT OFTHEAWARD RESPONDENTS : N01M-APPLICANTS ^•' • •; : ! •• • • .-19^.1^ . .....-^?£" .^""'-...•'Sf''- ^4'!^ ^-A.-" ^h^MflCdfin..^ sn^iw R-fi* TOisiitoT^nw f, aTlWKe, ia('^l'M3< ,.^..^.c......^±l:0.......... an^n'q??? (yii^flii^} ^ •^•BlWtifwaifTOi S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwal 10.11.2009 Shri Atnu Ghosh, Advocjate for appellant. None for respondent Not Heard on admission. The instant appeal has( 07.05.2007, passed by the Ctaims Tribunal Surajpur (for 23/05. Bus bearing reglstration No. q;wfci«"i"f>twd('?fvs <rai«;i< ^•aifeir.a^i 2 though served. been preferred by the appellant, seeking enhancement of com^ensation against the award dated llnd Additional Motor Accident ^hort 'Tribunal') in claim case No. The brief facts of the ca^e according to appellant are that, on 23.04.1999, the appellant r(iet with an accident with the Mini MP 27-B-2282 due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus Drjiver and pursuant to said accident sustained grievous injuries. The appellant preferred |an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the]Motor Vehicles Act, claimlng compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidenee led by the parties, the materiat available on the record, and submissions of the parties, av^arded total amount of Rs. 4000,/- as compensation in favour of tl^e appellant. ^ ^^K^^5^]?^V^^^^—rS/95—1I/200>>—1.00,000. -+ -A ', ^tflwre, foi<-ii£ig-< ..2^1P... ^- sn^ritwc^tfp^tt) sn^w w Ri-liik wi ailrtw l?i)te ^mmflf^iaftw )he Learned counsel for although the Doctor has not looking to the fact that the a^pellant and amount awarded is shockjng be altowed and the compensalfon 1 have heard the leail appellant and perused the rec^rd. The Supreme Court in Reddy, reported in (2005) 12] under: claimant who made an att' qmifi<?l-l Wtaf 4 ft^t TftR?R ^affiN 3(1^1 appellant would submit that |een examined in this matter, but sustained grievous injury, on lower side, this appeal may be enhanced. ijned counsel appearing for the c|ase of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupal |SCC-189, observed in para 6 as "6. After hearing learne^l counsel for the respondent- mpt to support the order of the High Court. We find that t^iere was no justification for the High Court to rely on the d|sability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and eifihance the compensation by treating the injury as penjnanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court comrjiitted gross error in overiooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunall for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal h^s determined the physical disability at 15 per cent oi\ the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarde|d a just and faircompensation. The High Court erred jn disturbing the same and enhancing the compensatjion. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the ipipugned order and restore the award of the Claims Triburial. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the an^ount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not] already been withdrawn." The Supreme Court in a|recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir|Singh and another, reported in -T^'^^^^STi^;ft5RT^m^-—?;S/95—-11/200^-—1,00,000. •fc •% ^ ^. 1 r, ofli is, R4"ii'H3< ...c.-.-saD... 3II^?t 1q3R? (•jti^'t'iy) sn^t w !wi+ wn 3B%w *>ii+ wvw^sy^i *l<l!<-l<?l4^n?B< 'fet^ 1^R?I ^3Jfi|tt3!t^t (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiteratecj observations in para 11: the same view with the following "11. The certificate in qu after two years. It is no Surgeon of the hospital basis, such a certificate accident took place is nol ^stion in this case was obtained known as to whether the Civil (reated the appellant. On what [ivas issued two years after the known. The author of the said certificate had not been ^xamined. Unless the author of the certificate examined Itimself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whetherthe on the basis of the Compensation Act or oth (lisability at 60% was calculated brovisions of the Workmen's ferwise isnot known, It is also not known as to whether (ie was competent to issue such a certificate. It even doest raised before us had Tribunalorthe High Cour( not appear that the contentions ither been raised before the . The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceed record by the parties. ^d on the materials brought on jtn absence of any contention having been raised in rejgard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensatioti Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, t^ie same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised ipr the first time." A Division Bench of thip High Court in case of Pradeep KumarSahu vs. Sarupa Salip & anottervide orderdated 31 March, 2009, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above held in para 8 as under: "8. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTp v. P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alia^ Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the c^rtificate produced before the Tribunal in the absencejof examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is n^ither admissible in evidence nor T^T^ ^^n< I^TT^I ^Ri^T^m^—FS/9S—i 1 /'200S—1,99,0&0. ~y& ^ r' -y ii* n%l?R(? 'ys; ^Ti)T?P?, 'SRft^FTS, R.IMI-H^. ...^.Jte.........3^4.Q.. 3{1^<!1 4^* ('iq(3'"il!') 3K%W^I i^-l'W '(W Sff^y ifetff^) wnw^ftaw^i '°ri i^'^'f "^fH^t? ^f 1^3t <F<it^$!'! ^aifmsn^i te Kvr can be takeninto consideration assubstantive evidence • for assessment ofthe cor(ipensation in the case." In a motor aeeident cla|n case, as per Section 168 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to 6e awarded) jy^,arid,.[:^<)g$r.^Gp^(Rensatio^ Tribunal. Theapi:^! filed by the what is important is that the by the Courts/Tribunal should be in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bouijity nor charity. Forthe rgiasons mentio(ied hereinabove, 1 do not find any scope for enhancement of tl^e compensation awarded by the appellant for enhancement of the compensationnis therefore liat^le to be and is hereby dismissed. No"ordefas't6l86sts. j^j. N.K.A8arwal judge ^-.r^^^ ^;ir^^?-Tt^)t^—!''.S/^5—11 / 200^—1,00,000. 1 II U rt!i