WQH CGURT 0% CHHATTW€3&RH AT‘E‘LA$PMR navigmw gmw‘gwy CQRAM: QN ELE SizHW RAJE§V {3UPTIX C» J H5‘N’ w Em”! QL ‘PANWikR J Maw immeaé (C) No W3 M wms &Qmmm Smt Mam: bai w/c Chamru “Wga mged A about 20 years R/Q Majarpar Kate KaWan, ‘fah/Disstt Damawada (<3G) Vm’aug Sanmsh Kumar Patra 8/0 Sonadhar (Driver 0f fha vehécle) 2. Guddu £310 Lam Honga, Aged 22 years (Owner (3f ma vehicée) Both R/o Wéage Adhwai, Tah Jagcia%pur, Dist? Easter (CG), "mmugh Hakeem Khan $Io $u£eman Khan RIO ”ate Kqycm Tah 1 Dim Dameawada ((JCJ) The Wired mdia mgurance Co. Ltd, Bramh Anupama Chawk Jagdalpur ms? 8%te: (Cb) Rasnanmmg 1 . Q} Miwmmwam Awpmk undw $emi0n W3 m" ma mmm “sféhidw tact, “mag Wmwmt bhr 73M Smrwaa ccungai fertha appeiiant, KERWER {3rd Fsabmary‘ 20? 0) Tm mimwmg order 0f the Court wag pamed by WWW @upm, (3 $ 3hri PM Shrivw, leamégd caunse! for {he appenam i3 heard on iA No‘1/2008, a pefat‘mn far cendonation 0f the: daiay in fiimg the abeaL p R} 2) On due conaideratmn, VA No.1l2008 i5; anovved and the detay 0f arm—{jay in fiiing the appeai is, hemby condoned. 3) Sm“? PM $hriva5, learned coungei fQr the appellant m heard on aamiggian. 4) Appmmm Elm: Ajami Ba? ig seeking enhancement of the ccmpenga‘tion awarded by the Adwtionezl Mmor Accident Ciaima Tnbnnat, Dantewada (far short, ‘tne Tribunai") Vida award dated M.DQ.20Q?, 9a3sed in Ciéim Case N0.‘i25/2005. 5) A53 against compnnaaiinn oi Rs.3,5i),OOO/—, claimed by the claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Momr Vehicles Ac? for the iniuneg sugminecl by hey in the meiar acoideni 0n 05.67.2004, the “Tribunal awarded a total sum of RsAAODL ae comnenealion along with intereer @ 6% per annum frem ihe date of filing oi the claim petition iill the date oi actual payment. 6) Sihri PM Shrivee, teamed counsel for the appeilaht vehementiy ergned that the Tribunal hae erred in awarding iew oompeneation of Re.4,4OG/— only, though the appeliant x’ claimant euetained multiple eerioue iniurlee including treoturee in the motor accident reeulting in permanent dieabiiityi 7) Before the “tribunal: the ciaiment examined herself ae AW/i in support ot her claim and for the reaeone beet known to her, no doctor wee examined before the Tribunai to establish the nature of the iniuriee said to have been suetained by the appeiient/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those iniuriee resulted in any permanent dieebiiity. /'\ B) The quaamn whether the medicat cemfiCate produced by the cfaimam before the Tribunal! Without examining the Doctor who is‘aued the Gertifica‘te can fie remd upon as submantive evidence for the aSsegsment 0f the mmpenaa’tion came up for ceneideratmn befare the Apex Ceurt in the case of A.P.3RTG We Pfhérumk Reedy reported in (263%) $3 mm we, Wherem Et was obeerved in para 6 a3 under : “6. After hearing reamed counee! for the reepondeni —- eraimant who made an attempt to ' euppert the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justifioation for the High Court to reiy on the dieabiiity certificate iesueri by Dr Sudhakar Ready and enhance the compensatioh by treating the iniury ae permanent disabitity to be 4E3 percent. The Hroh Court committed arose error in overtooking the fact that Dr Suohakar Reddv’e medicai certificate was retested by the Tribunai for non—examination of that doctor. The Tribunai hae getermined the Qhyeioai gieahiiity at 15 oer pent on the basis or the deposition of Dr KM Mitre and awarded a iuet and tair comoeneationr "The Hidh Court erred in dieturoind the eame and enhancmm the commensation Consequently we aiiow thie appeat, aet aeide the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaime Tribunai. The reepondentmoiaimaht ie attowed to withdraw the amount ot compensation awarded by the "i‘ribunai, if it has; not atready been withdrawn.” Qt) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Raieeh homer atiae Ratio tie "rudhyir Singh and another, reported in {who} 7’ $GE 30a! rerterated the same view with the foiiowing ohservatione in para t1 : t A n “1 1. The eemficate in quegtion in this case was, obtained after two yearg. it 3s mt Known 8‘3 t0 whemer the Civii Surgeon 0f the hagpi’cai treated the appenam. 0n what baeie, euch a certificate wee ieeued twe yeare after the accident took piece ie not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uhiese the author of the certificeie examined himeeif‘ it wee not admieeibie in evidence. Whether the dieabiiitv at 60% was oaicuiateci on the bae’ie of the provieione of the Workmen’e Con'ipeneation Act or otherwiee ie not Known. it ie eiso not Known ae to whether he was competent io ieeue euoh a oei'iiioaiei ii even does not appear that the oontentione raised before ue hact either been teieed before the Tribune! or the High Court. The “i“ribunai ere eieo the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiate brought on record by the partiee. in abeenoe of any contention having been reieed in regarci to the appiicabiiity of the Workmen’e Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex fecie has no appiioetion, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised tor the firet timer” 10) in View oi' the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court, in the caees oi” MRSRTS We Pfi‘hirupei Reedy (eupra) and Reiesh itumer eiiae Reju tie ‘i’uothvir $ingh (eupre), the medical oertii'ioatee produced by the appeiiant l oiairnant before the Tribunai without examining the doctors, who had issued thoee oertit’icatee oennot be taken into coneideration tor enhancement oi the compeneetion in the ceee. U; H) We, therefore, domot find any scope for enhancement of the compeneation awarded by the Tribune}. 1'2) The appeal filed by the appeliant for enhancement of the ”M compeneation, therefore, is tiable to be dismissed and ie hereby dtemieeed eummeriiy. Sd/- Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Chief Justice Judge