B HUN ELI: Mr JUSTIDE $UNIL KR SI ON’BLE N5? JU$T!CE R l‘u €LiANDR avin umar Kesar, bout 35 years, S/o Ra ishan' er Occuatio opkeeper and agriculurst, 10 vm. Dushranur Than ipan'ya Tahs§§ awardh istrict ,Kabirdham (C.G iers ius ES ano umar Netam Ae bcuf 3 e Buda etam Occaflon Drlvgf e athpara Kawah Distnm Kalrdham \C G aramumar haue Agedk'about- years, S/ $‘ a rasa hri Sumnt Pd Cuy habe, Occupation Gcvemmerfr erce i Mathara Kawarciha Than rlc rna Kairna . Orena xnsuranC’e ompany, Bran §c athiiie Rapandgaon ic Rajnandacn c iSyELU‘NEQUS A?FEAMQ¥“QE&§§C MOTQR VEH LES ACT AAweamnw h V C£ f th pt erma ounse or e apellan r Sudhlr Verma eunsel or reepondewts l 8: M C ‘ 2 Mr Abhlehek Sinha Counsel for resondent No 3 RAL enne (12.01;;2c1i1 9f th Cwl s ps y e o wa ased b 3 UMA NH ‘1 H n MA. N0.1$3312(m5 N K i Aged a m K Ksai pn Sh ti R gp, a P Ka, D .) APPELLANT RSimNDENT Mj K gd a 2 yar c nn N Up ,- R/ M rda b ) Dhk l Cby, ' 4G c gw Pc p a‘ Kawad Di t bdm (CG.) itl i’ C ch Offe Kmn Dstrit g (C ) M LT ON 173 OF THE ' p O e ) hd ear ‘ The appellant/claimant has fited his appea fo enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Cas, No 04/2005 by the Motor Acoident Claims Tribunal Kairdha _ (Kawardha) C G Vide award dated 2Q” of July 2005 The appeilant/ctaimant filed a claim petition under Secio 166 of the Motor Vehioies Act claiming compensation o _ Rs 23 65 ODD/- for the personal Injuries sustained by him m the mOtor accrdent The appellant pleaded that he sustained compound fracture m his right leg In the said accxdent an for t l r e bm 1 . _ tn f “ 3 . , I d this he was hospitallzed from 24th of July 2004 o 14mof Augus I 2004 Though the appellant pleaded that he sustained ' compound fracture and suffered permanent disaollity, but no _/Doct0r was examined by the appeibnt to substantiate th above contentions ' ‘ ‘ “ The Tribunal on the eVidence led before it awarded a sum of Rs 3 703l— (rounded of as Rs 4 000%) as the expenses incurred m the treatment Rs 25 GOOI- for the fracture and ‘V Rs 10OGOI- forpam and sufferings The Tribunat thus awarded a total sum of Rs 39 00m; as compensation to th appeitant/claimant for the injurles sustained by him tn the moto ‘ coldent on 23 G? 2004 The Tribunal also awarded intereSL 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition til realization Learned counset for the appellant vehementtv argues tha the Trtbunal has erred in awarding tow oompensauon of Rs 39 OUW- only, Wherea the appeltantfclalmant sustained , multipte serious injuries and he also suffered permanen disability _ ror the reasons best known to the appeilant/clavimant no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the natur of theri uries said to have been sustained by th appellantlclaimant in the motor accident and the fact that thos lnluries resulted in any permanent disabillty i 2 MA. NO.1 333!2GG5 _‘ e V f" : e _ ., r V @ : l tf: t ‘r " : I t te e, _f - , e V ‘ e 1 MA. NQ1333/2w5 ‘Theqyestion whether the medical cerfl he Claimanebefore the Tribunal without exa w'he issuedfthe certificate can be reiied up cafe produced minin the Du on as susantiv ' bte I satton came u fo case of P. SRT (00i 12 $CC'189,-Lwhereini ' ”vidence forgthe aesessment‘ of‘ the compen c‘dnsideratieh before the Apex Court in t _ VIP. .Thirugé! Reiidy, reported in it was? observjed in bare 6 as d $3 After heaing [earned counset for t respondent-ctaimant. ho made an attempt to therewas uppcrt the no’ order justification of the for High the Court, High Court we find to 'rei that on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar the» eddy injury and as enhance‘the permaneniidisabiiity compensation to be 45 by per treating cent. he. ‘ Hi fCourt citt t appeai, set ‘ aside etimpugned order we and ‘aiiow restor thi the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- ‘ ciaimantg is ailowed _ to withdraw, the amount of compensation aviarded by the Tribunal, if it has not atr‘eady‘ been withdrawn." ‘ tThe ApeiCo‘ur‘t in arecent dictum in thecase of Raies Kam alias Rat: V.%’Yudhvir Sinai; and another repored n ya: T 36C 305: reiteratedthe sam View ,with'the fOliowing ‘servatio‘ns in parai ' obtained “11.; The after two kho'wn as t whethEr the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treatedth appellant.§0n what basis, E’suo‘hf a Certificate was issued tvy‘d years afte‘r'th‘e/aocident took place is, no known. Thsautho’r of the saidfcertificate had-no been examinediunles‘s the authorof‘thecertiiicat” V t t __ i vtdence Xamined '2Whethe t’himseiit , thedisabilityl-at ‘wasgg‘ndtt admissible 60%Wa i alcuiated ion the-basis of the;_proVisions of th 3 ti t by g ctor e ‘ he 25 uner p r. A C r he w s y R T h r ommed in > s th e s h , ar t i w e t : 1 o ’ e I ‘ > e i ; ‘ ‘ e e f r s n i " c e calculated on the baas of the provxsmns 0f the Wammers Cowpenaadon Act or othe'vwse is mt ‘ known it is also not known as to whether he was compeLent to Issue sucn a certificate tt even does ;‘T t t t '3 ‘ V‘ ,_ ' t _ \ ' not had Hlgh appear etther Court been that The the raised Tnbunat contemtone before as also the ratsed the Tnbunat Htgh before or Court the o: t ‘ ‘ therefore proceeded toe matenate brought on tecord by tne partles tn absence of any contentto - avmg been rats d m regard to the apyhcabihty o > the Workmens Compensatton Act which m our c our opinion opinion , ex cannot tame has be permttted no apptroatron to be rareed the save, for'the i V ftrsttme ' ' Aewehave already mentioned no'Doctor Was examined ' 7 , _ ‘i before the 1rrbunal to prove he fact that the appetantfctatmam I , , , erther sustained fracture or he suffered any permanent dreabrtaty L on account of the rngunes sustained by him i tn View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court rn the ' casee otA P Sf??? v P Thmroal Reddvtbuorat and ages ‘ . V Khmer rtfroate aims produced Ram v Ymfhwr before the 31mm Tnounat and another in the (Supra), absence the of ‘ ‘ _ examlnatron of the Doctor rseutng the oertmcate rs nerther : _ aornteeiole m evadence nor Gan be taken Into consrderahon as 1_ , gsubetantrve evrdenoe for assessment of the compensatron 1n: _ :the oase ’ For the foregorng reasons we do not fmd any scope ror ‘V enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ctaims; Tribunal _ ‘ ' ' I ‘ I The appeal tried by the appetant/oiarmant for, ‘ enhancement o: compensation therefore re trabte to be drsmrssed and rs hereby dismissed ‘ " No order as to costs Sdl- v, Sd/- R N Chandrakar SunilKumar Sinha r “r: Judge h‘ ‘ ‘ 1 j 1 1 n f n