IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(Q N0. ^ /2009 APPELLANT : CLAIMANT ^ ,<^^:^r ^y^^s^- •••" s^-*--""RESPONDENTS , 1] ACCUSED 2] 3] Shobhan Pandey, S/o. Gangadhar Pandey, Aged about 32 years, R/o. Village Lilesar, Bundeli Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS Sukhiram Kosariya, S/o. Sunauram Kosariya, R/o. Village Bundeli Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG) ...Driver ofoffendins vehicle bearins registration no._ CG06/ZA-0152 Bus Kulwant Singh, S/o. Joga Singh Khanoja, R7o. Ward No. 1, Purana Bus Stand, Mahasamund, Tahsil & District Mahasamund .(CG) .^Ownei^pf gffending vehicle bearing registration no. CG 06/ZA-0152 Bus The New India Insurance Company Limited, through: Manager Divisional Office, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ...(Insurer of offendins vehicle bearins resistration no. CG 06/ZA-0152 Bus APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE^IQTOR VEHICLE ACT Claim valued before Tribunal Rs. 6,50,000/- Claim awarded by tribunal Rs. 23,000/- Balance amount ofclaim R/s. 6,27,OOO/- ^(Hnnu— ^,^-sh S" tf t/ ^r 8 %^ S* B HIGH COURT OF ChttlATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CQRAM; HON'BLE SHRI FIAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (Cl No.363 of 2009 ^ Appellant Claimant Respondents Accused N Shobhan Pandey, S/o Gangadhar Pandey, Aged about 32 years, R/o Village, Lilrear, Bundeli Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS Sukhiram Kosariya, S/o Sunauram Kosariya, R/o Village Bundeli Police Station Pithora, Dlstrict Mahasamund (CG) (Drh/er of offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG-06/ZA-0152 Bus) Kulwant Slngh, S/o Joga Singh Khanoja, R/o Ward No.1, Purana Bus Stand, Mahasamund, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG) (Owner of offending vehicle bearing r^istration No.CG- 06/ZA-0152BUS) The New India Insurance Company Limited, through : Manager Divisional Office, the New India Insuranoe Company Limited, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur (GG) (Insurer of offending vehicle beartng registration No.CG-06/ZA-0152 Bus) Miscellaneous Appeal under Setrtton 173 of IWotor Vehicles Adi r^^ -^ %&.^ Present : Shri Manoj Paranjape and Shri Vito-am Dlxlt, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondart No.3. E;is%giitte' ^'"»ai =— ^o ORDER (06thJuly,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. AppellanV claimant Shobhan Pandey te seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accklent Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 16.02.2009, passed in Ctaim Case N0.72^006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section ' 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained l^ him In the motor accident on 18.02.2006, the Trlbunal awarded a tetal sum of Rs.23,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per anrajm from the date of filing of the claim petition tlll the date of artual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence, hekl the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.CG- ,06 ZA/0152 liable to pay compensation to the daimant. The Tribunal considering the number and nature ofthe injurtes proved to have been sustained by the clatmant in the motor accident; and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.12,000/- for the fracture sustalned by the claimant hi the motor accident; Rs.7,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.3,(XX)/- for special diet; and Rs.1,000/- for attendant. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.23,000/- as compensation to the "^:' ^ claimant for the injuries sustained by hlm in the mrtor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.23,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment 4) Shri Manoj Paranjape and Shri Vikram Dixit, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensatlon of Rs.23,000/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious Injuries hicluding fractures in the motor accident resulting in dlsabBity to the extent of 50%. 5) Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamed coun^l for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the ireiffer of the offending vehicle Bus on the other hand contended that e compensation of Rs.23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 6) Before the Tribunal the claimant e)®minedas many as two including hlmself (AW/1 Shobhan Prasad Paraley and AW/2 Mahesh Sahu) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the claimant, no ctoctor was examined before the Tribunal for a period of about two years slnce the filing of the dlaim petition on 11.08.2006. It was only after the lapse of a period of more than two years that an appltcation was flled by the claimant before the Tribunal for summoning the two doctors as wrfhnesses. The Tribunal vide order dated (M.09.2008 for cogent and suind reasons spelt out in the order, rejected the claimant's appBcation mainly on the ground that it was fited after inordinate delay. __Jlt •leunqpi SUIIBIO 841 10 PJBMB siji ajoisaj pue jspjo psuBnduii ay} epise }as 'ieaddB siyi AAO||B aw IA|(uanbasuoo •uoiiesusduioo 8i|) Buoueyua pue auies ayi ouiqjn|S!p ui psiia ynoo 4D!H aqi •uoiiEsusduioo ive^ pue (snf e papJBMB pUB &tl!N WIX •IQ uoiiisodsp 841 p siseq syt uo tuso jad si. fs AtiHqBSiP leoisAqd eyi psuiuijaiap sey IBiuiqyj. ai<l -jotoop }Bifl jo uoiteuiuuBXS-uou joi [Bunqpj. syi Aq petoajej sem atBoyiyao leoipaiu s,An3ay je)|eqpns JQ IBM» l3B( ei|i bup|oo|j9AO U| JOJJ9 ssojo psuiujiuoo ynoo i|b|H ayi -lusojad g^ aq 01 ^uiiqEsip lueueiujed se Ainfui 341 6in.tBa4 ^ uoiiesuaduioo aqi aoueiius pue Appsy je>|Bt|pns JQ Aq panssi eiEoijjijao Aijl!qBS|p ay} uo A|aj 0} tinoQ 4611-1 aiii JQJ uojtBoyi^nf ou SBM ajain ieyi puy SM 'yroo i<6!|-| 8Mt 1° japio 94} yoddns ot }dui9BB ue apeui O^M IUBUIIBP - tuspuodsaj aift Jdt |3suno9 psujeai BuyesLi jayy •9» : jspun se g ejed ui pa/uasqo SBM ij uiajayM 'esi. 308 Zt. (SOOZ) "! ps^odaj Appay |ednj|yi -d SA OlUS'd'V JO sseo aifl ui ynoo xsdv 8i|»sjo^aq uoiiBjspisuoo jo^ dn aiueo uonesuediuoo syt ^o lusuissasse ai|i jo^ aouap!/®eAiyjBtsqns se uodn p3||aj aq ueo sieoyiyso 94} psnssi o^M jo}30Q 941 fiuiujiuexa vioyiun leunqui syi ajo^aq »UBIU!B|O eig Aq psonpojd ateoyivso leoipaiu aq} jayiaqM uoitsanb 941 (g •Atliiqesip luaueuijsd Aue ui |»}|n^j saunfui ssoyi }B4t pe( aqi pue tuepjooe jo}ouu ai|»ui uiiy Aq pauiBisns uaaq SAey 01 pres sajjnfu! 941 ^o ajnieu pue jaquinu a^ i<s|iq8isa o» leunqui ay^ sjojaq joioop Aue SUIUIBXS V)U CTP }UBUJ!B|0 941 (Blfl suieuiaj PB( ai|t 'Aeui 11 se IBI|} ag (^. v^ ^3;:-"'*-.:. ,f..^ ff&^- S 'SSXS: s '"aB^ I'^p^ll \^-^/ ^'/ The respondent<ilaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if.it has not already been wlthdrawn." 9) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and amrthw, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, retterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 ; "11. The certificate jn question in thls case was obtained after two years. It is not known ^ to whether the Civlt Surgeon of the hospltal freated the appellant. On what basis, such a certiflcate was issual two years after the accident t(x>k place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabillty at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Aet or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been ralsed before the Trlbunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the partles. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no applicatton, the same, in our opinlon, cannot be permltted to be raised for the first time." k S^^^^^S&^^.^r'^^'-'3^^^^-^"^^ 6 ^ 10) The medlcal certlflcate and the disayiity certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctore who had issued those certificates in viewof the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court !n the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thtrupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra) cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation In the case. 11) Even otherwise, the disability certificate produced by the claimant before the tribunal (Ex.P/10) clearly indicates ttiat the disability certified by the Medteal Board was of temporary nature. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal, filed by the appellanVclaimant for ertiancement ofthe compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dlsmissed. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Rangnath Cbandrakar Judge padma .\ ^, x. '\ '^ -<-£