^. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (0 No. ^h^ /2008 PPELLANT APPLICANT ^-Raju, S/o Ramkishun Satnami, aged 16 years, Minor, through father ^-Riamkishun Satnami, S/o Sewak Ram Satnami, R/o Village Pachri, Police Sation Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^NON-APPLICANTS ^A^' Sunil Kumar, S/o Ashok Kumar Sriwas, aged 22 years, R/o Village Pamgarh, Police Station Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Ramesh Kumar, S/o Tularam Sahu, R/o Pump House Colony, Korba (C.G.) The United India Insurance Company Limited, through Baranch Manager, Branch Office R.B. Traders, First Floor, StadiumRoad, T.P. Nagar, Korba (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTIO T73 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 E =F •—78 3TT^T ^T R4J4) ^T^T ^TT^T^^F § . ^~ST ^ii^Kn^, ^tTI<H'*i<o, [®i<rti^^< *<i*iCTi ^i^ncb :Wt 200 ^ 3ff^?T TT5W (llclt^<i^) ^HW^f^ ^^ S,B, Hon'ble Shri Justice Nj 09.10.2009 Shri Ravindra Agrawal,] None for respondents. Heard on admission. The instant appeai ha^ seeking enhancement of corr| 14.03.2008, passed by the Janjgir-Champa (for short 'Tri The brief facts of the Cc on 26.03.2007, whiie the app Chandipara by bicycle, one registration No. CG-12/G-63E injurles. The appellant preferrec under Sectlon 166 of th€ eompensation to the tune sustained by him on account The Trjbunal, on a clo; the parties, the materjal submissions of the parties 23,850,7- as compensation in <=M^(<rt<ili *ii^<y?l ^f 'fetst <f^l'^i< ^stfipTW^T K. Aaarwal Advocate for appeliant. been preferred by the appeilant, pensation against the award dated Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal )unal') in ciaimcase No. 80/07, se according to appellant are that, eilant was going from Pamgarh to Hero Honda Motorcycle, bearing 9 dashed the appeilant, sustalned an appllcation before the Tribunal Motor Vehicles Act, claiming >f Rs. 1,95,000/- for the injuries )f the said accident. >e scrutiny of the evidence !ed by avaiiabie on the reoord, and awarded total amount of Rs. avouroftheappeilant. •^r^'X -HC—78 '3^r ^I^H^, ^iH-H<i<o, f«i<ni'M^< *IP1^1 ft»*lich :^ 200 a^T 'cra^ (licif^«l<iq) 3TT^T ^T fqni^ ^SH 3TT^T Sb^icft I^TW^^^T^T Shri Agrawai, Jearned submit that although the Doc1|o matter, but looking to the f| grievous injury, and amount a\ this appeal may be ailowed an|d 1 have heard the leal appeiiant and perused the rec<fl The Supreme Court in c| Reddy, reported in (2005) 12| under: counsel for the appellant wouid br has not been examined in this act that the appellant sustained [warded is shocking on lower side, the compensation beenhanced; |ned counsei appearing for the kd. |ase of-A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirtipai [SCC-189, observed in para 6 as "6. After hearing learneji claimant who made an att< HighCourt. Wefindthat High Court to rely on the Sudhakar Reddy and treating the injury as per cent. The High Cpurt comr|nitted the fact that Dr. Sudhakar peddy rejected by the Tribuna| doctor. The Tribunal disability at 15 per cent o^ Dr. K.M. Mitra and award< The High Court erred enhancing the compensat this appeal, set aside the award of the CIaims Tribur aiiowed to withdraw the arrl bythe Tribuna!, if it has nol cbl^fd4l'1 'HW^ff ^f "fe^ <P»l'^K i^3ffim3Ti^T counsel for the respondent- smpt to support the order of the fiere was no justification for the d|sability certificate issued by Dr. efihance the compensation by rjnanent disability to be 45 per gross error in overlooking ir peddy's medical certificate was for non-examination of that |ias determined the physical the basis of the deposition of ^d a just and fair compensation. |in disturbing the same and (ion. Consequently, we aiiow ^npugned order and restore the (ai. The respondent-claimant is |ount of compensation awarded aiready been withdrawn." -T / / ^" v'^ '% '^>^\/: v^.-.''->-' .......'^ XI-HG—78 T^T ^i^Kn^, ^tIi<H^i<o, [^t^i^y WRC'ITWflch "^ 200 3TT^T TT^F ( ^f^^) ^TT^T^T'f^N' ^TT 3TT^T ^RN? ; ^Tc'ITW^rfiH ^^ The Supreme Court in Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvi (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiteratecj observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in qu^ after two years. It is no| Surgeon of the hospital basis, such a certificate acddent took place is not certificate had not been the certificate examined evidence. Whetherthe on the basis of the Compensation Act or not known as to whether a certificate. It even doesl raised before us had Tribunal or the High Courl, Court, therefore, proceed| record by the parties. having been raised in Workmen's Compensatiof facie has no application, be permitted to be raised A Division Bench of thi Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa SaA^i March, 2009, placing its reii< Court in the cases referred ab^ "8. In view of the abov< in the cases of A.P. SRT^ chl^fd^l'1 ^Hd) "^ fe^ <^<^l< ^)'a^R3^?T recent dictum in case of Rajesh Singh and another, reported in the same view with the following ^stion in this case was obtained known as to whether the Civil 1'eated the appeliant. On what |vas issued two years afler the 1 known. The author of the said b<amined. Unless the author of (imself, it was not admissibie in pisability at 60% was caiculated lirovisions of the Workmen's oth^rwise is not known. It is also |e was competent to issue such |not appear that the contentions tither been raised before the The Tribuna! as aiso the High l^d on the materials brought on |n absence of any contention re^ard to the appiicability of the Act which, in our opinion, ex t|ie same, in our opinion, cannot fer the first time." i^ High Court in case of Prsdeep & a??offtervide order dated 31st |nce upon the dicta of Supreme ^ve heid in para 8 as under: quoted dicta ofthe Apex Court \ <p v- P. Thirupaf Reddy (supra) XI-HG—78 ^TT^T ^T'f^thT ^T^H ^^ ^^\^ ^iniimiiililN, <1/' < ,\p ^sf ^ii^id<LI, ^itilwKo, f®i<ni^y <n*1<rlT 5b*<l<»» '^200 31T^T '(T^I^ ( ^(^<i^) '^nw^n^n^r S^hu and Rajesh Kumar aii^ another (supra), the Tribunal in the absencej issuing the certificate is can be taken into consicferation for assessment ofthe cortipensation i^ Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and c^rtificate produced before the of examination of the Doctor n^ither admissible in evidence nor as substantive evidence in the case." boui|ity In a motor accident c!a9 Motor Vehides Act, 1988, j compensation to be awardedj just and proper compensatior each case. it is neither a For the reasons mentiohed scope for enhancement of t^ Tribunal. The appea! filed by the| compensation is therefore iial; No order as to costs. <=M^f^i<fl»i'^TTR^yf ^f fe^l iPt^K IF)'^tRpT 3?T?^T tn case, as per Section 168 of the what is important is that the by the Courts/Tribunai shouid be in the facts and circumstance of nor charity. hereinabove, i do not find any |e compensation awarded by the appeliant for enhancement of the ie to be and is hereby dlsmissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge