BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.^ ^ M.A. fO N0. r7^} /2008 : Laxman Thakur S/o Mithayee lal, aged about 49 years, Cast-Naiee Occupation Service (Nagar Panchayat Pratappur) P.S. and Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Surgujg (C.G.) VERSUS APPELLANT Claimant NON-APPLICANTS Defendants *:.$-^ ^' 3. Rajendra Singh Chhabda S/o Late Santosh Singh Chhabda aged about 40 years, Occupation Business, R/o Namnakala Ring Road Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Oriental Insurance Company Through: Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Banaras Chowk Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Narendra Pratap Kashyap S/o Nakchhediram Kashyap aged about 40 years, Through: Rajendra Singh Chhabda S/o Late Santosh Singh Chhabda, R/o Namnakala Ring Road Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.). Amount claimed before the tribunal -— 74.168/r Learned tribunal awarded only —— 5000/-^ Appeal for enhancement of award rest of money ——69.168 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 2001 XI-HC—78 3?TT^T ^TT'Rpfi^ '^f2TT 3T|^T 9h^i<=t) ^ i.l :^'':^^'^ ;^.i^.:?'%::^: '^%.^'^:: ~5^r T^i^i<n^ ^til^Ko, [®Krti<-i^< r^ *11*1Cr(l CT»*11C|» ^200? ^?T^?T '<T^P ( yi^<i^) I^TTWHft^ 3?y^?T S.B. Hon'bie Shri Justice N.K| 20.10.2009 Shri Sunii Tripathi, Advocjate Shri AK Athaley, Advocatje Heard on admission. The instant appeal has seeking enhancement of comp^r 11.03.2008, passed by the A|: Tribunai (FTC), Pratappur, Sur^ case No. 40/07. The brief facts of the cas|e on 05.01.2004, while the appe| reglstration No. CG-15/ZA-025$ injuries. The appeilant preferred ^n under Section 166 of the compensation to the tune of sustalned by him on account ofjthe The Tribunai, on a clos^ the parties, the materiai submissions ofthe parties, aw^rded as CQmpensation in favour of th{e chl^f<rt4h ^Hdf ^ 'fe^t <F»i^fi< ^STRPTOT^T Aaarwaj for appellant. for respondent No. 2. ^een preferred by the appellant, snsation against the award dated ciditional Motor Accident Ciairns ^uja (for short Tribunal') In claim according to appeliant are that, lant was coming by Bus bearing met with an accident, sustained ^n application before the Tribunal Motor Vehicles Act, claiming Rs. 74,168/- for the injuries said accident. scrutiny of the evidence led by vaiiable on the record, and tbtal amount of Rs. 5000,/- appeilant. ^KSSfe ^i^ijl '^i^^^s^ itffifttfteySAIItii'l^iiiiI illlllliilBSII^iisliiSfiiJlijBiB iilffii®&%ilJIS%Si?IBIft§8iSjii l^^ ^'.•^ -^, ^ w-^^s^.. 1 XI-HC—78 75ET ^l^lcnq, ^tll<H^(o, [®l<ni<H^< WHVM »»*<!<»» -^ 200 ^TI^TT TT^P ('ljGrf35^) 3:n^r ^T'RprN? TT^TT 37T^T^7TFF r^- ^HW^f^T 3??^?[ -±. Shri Tripathi, learned c^ submit that although the Doetc| matter, but iooking to the fa| grievous injury, and amount av^ this appeal rnay be aliowed anc| 1 have heard the lear^ appeiiant and perused the reco| The Supreme Court in Rsddy, reported in (2005) 12 under: lounsel for the appeliant wouid <r has not been examined in this i|3t that the appeilant sustained farded is shocking on lower side, [the compensation be enhanced. |ied counsei appearing for the td. c^se of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal pCC-189, observed in para 6 as "6. After hearing leamecj claimant who made an attetnpt HighCourt. We find that tit High Court to rely on the di| Sudhakar Reddy and er|i treating the injury as perr|ianent cent. The High Coyrt comn| the fact that Dr. Sudhakar rejected by the Tribunal| doctor. The Tribuna! 11 disability at 15 per cent 6r| Dr. K.M. Mitra and awardet The High Court erred enhancing the compensat| this appeai, set aside the award ofthe Ciaims Tribur|al. aiiowed to withdraw the ambunt by the Tribunai, if it has not| <=hl^f<n<fll TW^ ^ fe^ iF^i^K ^'3tRfq3TT^T counsel for the respondent- to support the order of the |ere was no justification for the ^ability certificate issued by Dr. jhance the compensation by disability to be 45 per |itted gross error in overlooking S^edd/s medicai certificate was for non-examination of that (as determined the physica! the basis of the deposition of a just and fair compensation. |n disturbing the same and |on. Consequently, we allow ii|npugned order and restore the The respondent-ciaimant is of compensation awarded [already been withdrawn." wm 's.^^ %i M^SM ^1^^^.-^^^^;1 ^^Xii';;^:'l.:^;^y:^% .^^?^'% Y'A:.::1£.'^:-.,-:;;..;;';.-1'-'^~' ;;.^^:;y;^'^^^^'.;,':^^.^;^;:^;;.:^ ^c ^•'s^ ^^^^ lx"^^^^":;^:y'^"'.'.'''.;'". ws-s /f"!\ ^ ^G. XI-HC—78 'T^r ^i^icn^, ^ti1^4i<o, [®i<nM^< WH^'ff^rHl^ "^ 200 3TT^?T 'q^R' ('^rf^Sf^T) 3TT^T ^FT Rrli<^ ?f^T 3TI^T'CTN^ The Supreme Court in a| aiias v. Yudhvirl (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated| observations in para 11 : "11. The certjficate in que] after two years. it is not Surgeon of the hospita! tri basis, such a certificate v^ accident took piace is not certificate had not been o the certificate examined hi evidence. Whether the d on the basis of the p Cornpensation Act or oth^ not known as to whether h| a certificate. !t even does raised before us had ei| Tribuna! orthe High Court.j Court, therefore, proceed^ re.cord- by the parties.. having been raised in re^ Workmen's Compensation| facie has no appijcation, t!^ be permitted to be raised fcj A Djvislon Bench of this ys. March, 2009, piacing Its relia Court in the cases referred abo "8. In vievv of the above in the cases of A.P. SRTC cM^fa<flTl 1;7T^ff ^ fe^t <M^I< 3>.— ^^Tq 3Ti^r recent dicturn In of Singh and another, reported in the same view wit'n the fQiiowing ^tion in this was obtained known as to whether the Civil the appeilan'L On what as issued two years after the <nown. The author of the :amlned. Un!ess the author of mseif, it was not admissibie In sabiiity at 60% was calcuiated rovisions of the VVorkmen's rwise is not known. !t is aiso was competent to issue such rot appear that the contentions ther been raised before the The Tribunai as also the High on the materiais brought on absence of any contention ard to the appiicabiiity of the iAct which, in our opinion, ex e sarne, in our oplnlon, cannot T the first time.5' High Court in of & a/io^ervide order dated 31SI [ice upon the dicta of Supreme |/e heid in para 8 as under: Iquoted ofthe'Apex-Courl'\ v. P. Thlmpal Recldy.\(supra) /?a^\ ^^ XI-HC—78 ^^ ^T f<^i4) Tfsn ^TT^T 9h*iw h^<«». Sff 'S^f ^{WW^, ^itll^Ko, f®|<rll<4^< t(T*l<tl tb*ll<!h '•^200 3TT^r T5R7 (ll°lil<sl<^) ^^nw ^if?^ ^n^T celtificate and Rajesh Kumar alia^ anothar (supra), Vne Tribunal in the absencel issuing the certificate is ne| can be taken into consjdel'ation for assessment ofthe coml Raju v. Yudhvir Slngh and produced before the of examination of the Doctor ther admissibie in evidence nor as substantive evidence )ensation in the case." in a motor accident clairti Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded just and proper compensation ] each case. it is neither a bounl For the reasons mentiont scope for enhancement of th^ Tribunal. Jhe appeal flled by the c-ompensation is therefore iiabl] No order as to costs. <=bl^(d^H ^ll^d) "^f^t <^i<^i< it?3ffim3^[ case, as per Section 1 68 of the lA/hat is important is that the )y the Courts/Tribuna! should be in the facts and circumstance of y nor charity. ad hereinabove, i do not find any compensation awarded by the ippeiiant for enhancement of the ^ to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge III :r .'I., iijl^illi ^^:;.:^^^ .^•.•^.