<^>J IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.l MISC. APPEAL f C ) N0. 1> ^ b OF 2008 APPELLANT Claimants Janda @ Vijay Laxami D/o. Budhu Singh Thakur, aged about 22 years, r/o. Village - Risaipara Dhamtari, Tahsil Distt.- Dhamtari C.G.) ^-,) VERSUS RESPONDENTS. J^' ^s- rl. Shahab Rao S/o Punjab Rao by Caste Man©te,r/o. Village - Hirapur, Thana - Amanaka, Tahsil & Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). V2f. Bhupendra Singh S/o. Suraj Singh Tanwarr/o. Tatibandh Raipur, Tahsil & ^^ Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) O^.-^A ls- Brarich Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Near Adarsh Bal Mandir, Balak Chowk Dhamtari, Distt.- Dhamtari /^/ ( C.G.) .^ £\' ^. .^ <s-^' Branch Manager, The United Indialnsurance Company Ltd., Krishana Complex First Floor Kachahari Chowk Raipur , Distt.- Raipur ( C.G.) MEMO RANDUM OF MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT XI-HC—78 37T^?T '?FT fqiw ^H 3?TT^T 9b^i<=h <ff<1CtT^»HI<»» 7sr'^II^H'LI,??iii'y<i<o, [«i<ni<ili,< rrvA^'^o-^^ /^^ ^"•"••"""••"••••"•""""•""•""""••":-^200 3TT^T TPW (lctfsq^) ^«i|t^Rtif^a ^TT^T SB: 9-10-2009 Shri Vaseein Miyaii^l Heai'd 011 adimssion.l 2, Appellant/ claimar|1 com.pcnsa'tiou awanded by| Tribuiial, Dliaintaii (&r sh^: 4-2008 passed m Claim C^ 3. As agaiiist fhe coxn^ the appeUaiit/ claim.ant by| •of the' Motor 'VeTiicles Act inotor accideut on 19-10-21 78,000/ ~ as compensatk)u.| 4, Shri Vaseem Mya4: .vehemently argued fliat compeiisatioii of/ Rs,78,(| claiiiiaiit sustained. i2iultipl| 5. For tlie reasons be$ doctor was examizied befbr] the irguries said to.jiave ia. the motor accident aad.| aay pei'maiient disability. 6. . The questbirwhethel [^dvocate, for the appeMant. is seeldn^ eiihmiceBierit of. the the Aclditional Motor Accideut Claims.- ^rt "tlie Tribiiaal") vide award dated 10- jse No.568/2004. msation of Rs. 15,00,000/- claiiiied;by |filing a claioi petition under Section 166 |br the iiijuries sustained by her m. the' ;p03, fhe Tnbunal awarded a total of Rs, ^laiiiiaiit. before fhe Tribu: <=bl^idAi)'1 'm^Tf^F f^st <rai<^l< ^T 3tfim 3T1^?T i.K. 4e learacd couiisel for -the appellaiit Tribuual has erred in awardiag low |00/" only, wiiereas the appellant/ ^ serious iojuries iii the motor accident |t knowu fhe appellant / claimaiit no t fhe Tnbunal to estabUsli the nature of ^n sustaiiied by th.e appellant/ claimaiit ' fhe fact tliat fhose iojuries resulted .ia befcn tiie medical certtfk'ate -produced by the ,^ial'without exam.iiim.g the Doctor'who XI-HC—78 "3^ ^ii^i^^ S9ti1^^<o, [®t<ni<y^< <TTR€fT(»»*II^» :^ 200 3TI^?T TT^^ (<l?^<:i^) 3^T'5FT f<Tl)cb TT^H ^TT^T syi^iar) \ ^^nw^if^ ^rt?i issued tlie certilicate caii bb tfae assessment of the co|i before the Apex Court iii Reddy, reported m \ pai^. 6 as under : "6. After heat respondeut-elami^ support the orderj there. was no jus^ rely cn tlie disal Sudhakar Reddy by treatiag.fhe inj be 45 per cent T] en'or iii overlookibig the fact tliat Dr. Sudhakai- Recldy's medical Tribunal for non- Tribunal has det( at__15 per cent 01: Dr. K.M. Mitra conipensation.' disturbmg the compeiisation. C appeal, set aside 1 tiie awaixl of •rcspoiident~clami< amiount of Txii^unal, if it. has 7. The Apex • Gourt .io. .¥. Yll- :7 reitei observations .iii para 1-1 : <=r)i€<f<n<fl<i TTTR^Tf ^f f^st <F»I<^K ifr3fRm3TT^T ? relied upon as substaiitive evidence for 3ipe.usatioii came up for" coxisideration tlie ca.se of A.P. SRTC v. P. Tlais'upal 12 139, wherem it was observed m TIIR leanied counsel for the mt wlio Biade an. attenipt to of the High Court, we flnd that i&cation for tlie H^h Court to )ilit5r certificate issued by Dr- Mid enhaace the compeusauon |unr as peroiaiient disabi]i1y to ie_Hi^h Court committed gross •ertificate was reiected by fhe sxamiaation oftliat doctor. The rmio.ed the physical clisabiliU7 th.e basis oftlie deposition of' md awai'ded a iust aiid fair khe High Court en'ed iii same aiid emiaiicmg the tonsequeiitly, we a3Iow tliis lie im.pugued order aiid restore the Claims Tribunal. The pit is aUowed to withdraw the l.pensation awai'ded by tlie \not already beeu withdrawn/' |i recent dictam in the^case .reported \iu ^ted tiie same view with. flie'.followm.g ^^^v-^^ .^^. ":i- s^^. ^ ^^/ :^£.^-> XI-HG—78 ~3^T ^||<41d<4, ^tl1<H^<o, l®l<ni<i^< ^THCTf <t»**ici» •^200 an^T 'q^R? ( yii^<^) 3TT^T ^FT'f^lN? ^mw^rf^^?^ u 11. The was obtaiaed aftdj to whether the treated the certi&cate was accident took pla|: "fche said certifict cerltificate in questfon iii this case two years, It is not known as |Civil Surgeon of tlie liospital app^Uant. Ou what basis, such a ^sued two yeai's after tlie ;e is not laiowu. The autlior of ite__1iad__ _ not_ been exammed, Uiiless fhe autli- hiiiisetf, it was IVliether tiie divSal the basis of the| Coinpensation Ac| is also iiot ka^ coiiipetent to. isi does not appeai| before us had' d Tribunal or the H\ the High Court,] materials broughl absence of any cc regard to the a| Coiiipensatioii Ac1 Iias no applicati( caiinot'.be pei-mil time." 8. In the iiistaiit case, eveiy aspect of the Biattes been examiiied fo ^prove amozint ofRs. 78,000/- hs claimaiit / .• 9.. • In view .of tlie above cases of A.P. ©RTC.v.P. • chl^^fl^ ^H<rff ^f 'fe^ <F^^i< it? ^ifiPT 3T?^T •r of the certiflcate examiaed not adm.issible. in evideuce. )Qity at 60% was calciilated 031 provisions of the Workinen^s or otlienA'ise is not knowii, It ?wu as to whetlier he was ^ie sucli a certificate, It even tliat fhe coiitentions raised [flier been raised before flie Igh Court. The Tribunal as also fherefore, proceede.d on fhe on record by the pai'ties. In itention havuig beexi raised ioi ^plicability of the Workmen's which, iii our opiiiiou, ex facie |n, the same, in oiir opmion, Ited to be raisecl for flie first |tlie leaiiiecl Tribunal after coiisidermg, particulai'ly when tlie cloctor lias iiot' [pie injury aiid medical certificates/ an ^ bc-eu awmxled as compeiisation to tlie' quoted dicta of the Apex Cc^urt ui the' •l^upra) aad .^-'..^%^,. ^T\. i/'^ ...,.^. '^ i?^^-^ ^^ 'K-^::^ XI-HC—78 3TT^T ^FT ^Jch liriKiN^^Ssiiii^t^^iKi^^M -^EET ^||^ld<LI, ^tliwKo/ [GKrtl<yli< *ll*l(fll (hNlch "^200 ^TT^T 'q^r (^iT^<^) ^^nw^n^i^T befoli'e -u4r ¥. certificate produced exam.io.atioii of tlie Doc adniissible io. evidence substaiitive evideuce for case, 10. For fhe foregoiag enhaiiceiuent ofthe 11. The appeal filed by of the compensation, hereby disinissed. 12, No order as to costs. chl4<(<yl<^l TTT1TOf ^ 'fe^t <fa^l< ^3tf?W3TI^[ (Supra), tlie tlie Tribunal iii the absence . of. or issuiiiR the certificate is neither c£m be taJ^en iiito consideratiou ' as ssessm.ent of the com.pensation ia .tlie compe|isatiou tbe i^asous, I do not find miy scope -for. •awarded by the Tribunal. appeUant/claiBiant for enliEincemeiit tlier^fore, is Uable to be dismissed ajicl is Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge