^-^ ^ .....^' '^ SINQLEI IN_THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^^ M.A.CNo."'^^ /2008/DB APPELLANTS...........................(1) Prahlad Kumar APPLICANT Age About 29Years S/o Chintaram Sahu Occupation- Labour/ Agricultarist, Village Buchibharda, ..l-'Y'^yv Tah. And District- Rajnandgaon ,.|^^- (C.C, ..'^' VERSUS ^ i/ ^" RESPONDENT. Non -APPLICANT ............/(l) ^s'...,.^-^^ ^^^^ ^s' Jaylal Sahu Age About 23 Years S/o Bhuvanlal Sahu Occupation - Driver R/o Vill.- Kachandur, P.S.- Gunderdehi District -Durg (C.G.) Manoj Kumar Khandelwal S/o Lalu Khandelwal R/o Vill.- Gunderdehi P.S.- Gunderdehi District - Durg (C.G.) @ (3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rajnandgaon, Through- Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Branch- Office Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon ( C.G.) Aopeal under Section 173 Of the MotorVehicle Act 1988 (-~..^ ^n^T^tfq^ 'TOT 3TT^?y sFRW ^^'^Sw'r^-^/6% 'WI^ITWEn^"'""'"""'"-""'"""""'"""'-"-"^ ?oo ^T^T'q^^ ( yi^^) ^<nw^i3?n^r SB:JION. SHmJUSTICBJi.it fili|ag 18-9-2009 Shri Rakesh Thakiir, Sliri Ashish Gupta, Adv| Shri Dashratii Gupta, 2.' AppeIlaat/claimaQ.t i^ compensation awai'dcd by ^ Tribunal, Rajiisiadgaon (for s^ 14-11-2007 passed m M.A.C.i 3, As agauist fhe corapen| fhe appellaiit/ clauiiant by of the Motor Vehicles Act for| motor accident on 23-2-20061 Rs, 35,000/- as cb2npensatio4 4. Leanied counsel for fy^ tlie Tribunal has erred Rs.35,000/- oiily, whereas inultiple serious injuries ia fh| 5. Per contra, leaoied submit fliat iii the facts aad passed by Uie Tribunal is o.^ enliancement mid tlie appe^ doctor has not been examiiiiedl Qhl^tfd^l^ ^l^<?ff ^ 'fe^t <(^^K ^ ^tRfH ^n^T AOARWAL A<|vocate fbr the appellaat. Dcate, fbr respondents No. 1 aad 2» ^dvocate, for the respoudent No. 3. seekiag enliaiicenient of .fhe Additioiial Motor Accident CIamxs lort "the TribunaT") vide award clated p. No.136/2007. ^ation ofRs. 10,60,000/- clamied by a claiin petition under Sectioii 166 |tlie iojuries sustaiaed by iTim. iii fhe the'Tribunal awarded' a total suin.of 1& appeUant vetieiaently argiied that awardiag low compensation of |the appellant/ claiBiaiit sustained motor accident. appeadug for the respdB.dents l^ircumstances ofthe case, the award [^equate aiid it does uot requii'e aiiy |1 deserves to be disniissed as fhe I to prove injury. coliiisel ^ra^r^^^ ^"11^ <i<4-Jii<<ii<4—FS/9S—11/2008—i,oo,ooo. ^ ?, ^mwT^, 7^?rRJ^[ ^mw-i^te- •^200 3^^tft^r ^^r^tW .n','l,-f""flfn-<^","r-i Sfl^f^ (^Sj^) Wtw^SttWt^f %mf?N^ ^wftt%^x^ft t ^m w^ 6. For fhe reasons bes{ doctor was exainiiied beford fhe iajuri.es said to have be^li in the aiotor accidesit and aiiy peniiaiieiit disabiiity. sustaiaed by tlie appellaiit/ clamiant |the fact that fhose iajuries resulted in 7. The question whetlieil issued the certificate cao. b4 fhe assessmeut of fhe before tlie Apex Court iii kuown tlie appeUaat / claiiuan.t 110 flie Tribunal to establish the nature of the inedical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribu4al without examining the Doctor who reMed upou as siibstaative evidence for co3|ipensatic [ipensation caoie up for consideratiou lie case of A.P. SRTC v.P. Tfeirupal Reddy, reported m (2005) |.2 BCC 189, whereio. itwas obseived m para 6 as under : ff6. After heaijmg learaed counsel for fhe respondent-clami^nt who niacle ao. attenipt to support fhe order ^f fhe High Court, we find fhat there was no jus^t&cation for the High Court to rcly on fhe disal^ilily certificate issued by Dr, Sudhakar Reddy and enhaace fhe comLpensation by treatmg fhe injuiy as pennanent disability to be 45 per cent TIie Hiph Court committed gross error ia overlookijag fhe fact fhat Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical fcertificate was rejected by the Tribunal for uon-examiaation of that doctor. The Tribunal Iia.s detQr^i^e^^ie^^hvBicQl disBbQity at 15 per cent on the basis oftiie depositi^^ Dr. K.M. Mitra aiid awarded a iust axid fair coinpensation. The High Court erred iii disturbmg fhe i same aad enhaiicmg the coiiipensation. Cponseqzientiy, we allow fhis appeal, set aside the impzigned orcler aud restore '755T ^l'41<ri<4, ®Ti1'y<iG,[®l<rti-M'j,< WWITW^t% •^ 200 ^Ti^T 'q?RF (l^S^^) 371^1 "^T ^I^i 'TOT 3?it?T sCTW ^Rnw^ft^^i^r the award of tt< respondent'-clamianlj amiount of Tribuual, if it has M(^ coinp^nsation 8. The Apex Court iii a ^ Yudhtir Kumar alias Raju v. (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterat obsen/'ations ia para 11 : a 11. The certifi4 was obtained after t4vo to whefher the CNil tareated the appeUaitit. certificate was isskied accident took place the said certificatel Unless flie author himsetf,^ it was n< Wheffaer fh.e disabiU^y the basis of the p3 Co23ipensatiou Act oj is also iiot kuowi conipetent to issue does not appear before us had eith|c Tnbunal or fhe High| the High Court, 22iaterials brought abseuce of aiiy coat^ regard to the app3 Conipensation Act has no application,| caiinot be permittec| time." <^l^id4lr11 TIW^f^^S <F'it^s< ^ajfm^n^r Claims Tribimal. The is allowed to withdraw the awarded by the alreadv been witlidrawn,9' ;cent dictum m the case of Rajesli .Sisagh assd aaother,. repoxled m d the sa2iie view with the follownig ate iii question iii this case years. It is not known as Surgeon of the hospital. On what basis, such a two years after the is not kaowu. The author of had not been exaisiiiied. bf the certificate exaaiiaed >t adinissible ia evideuce, at 60% was calculated on tovisions of the Workm.en?s otherwise is not knowii. It as to whether he was such a certificater^^t even the contentious raised th|er been raised before the Court. The Tribunal as also tt|.erefore, proceeded on tlie record by the parties. In tntion haviag been raised ui |cabiHty of tlie Workraen's w^iich, in our opiniou, ex facie fhe saaie, io. our opiaion, to be raised for the first tittat Otl wbich, ^m^r^^^ ^uii^ <i'ai-ti<liM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. SH^T'^i fti^icb 1TOT ^T^T sh^jch ^ . ^. '3^r ^it^iH^, ^nl^Ko, r®i<ni^^< <nwiT «»*ii€h "^l 200 ^rr^T Tra^ (^is^^4) ^nw^frcr^ii^r Ldn Yiidhtir 9. In fhe instant case, ofthecase, particularlywhei^ ,^.|4 ^s^ prove tlie iajuiy* aad certlQc^ been awarded as Gqm.pensatk|: 10. In view of tlle above q| ca^es^of^A.P.,,S3S^C v. P. ^ Kumar alias Raju v. certificate^ $)i@duced before examiiiation bf thc Doctorl adimssible in evidence nor siibstan.tive evidence for asst case. •^!t 11. , ^Fo^ ib% forcgoing enhaQcenieiit of the coinpeus^ 12. The appeal filed by the| of tlie conipensatiou, hereby dismissed. 13, No order as to costs. coijisiderin^ |isidering fhe facts and circuiiistaiices the doctor has not been examiaed to ktes, an aiiiount of Rs. 35,000/~ has to fhe claimajit. |ioted dicta of ihe Apex Court in the 1'hirupal Reddy (Supra) aiid Rajesh Sissgla and asaother (Supra), the fhe Tribunal in fhe absence of issuiag the certificate is ueifher ;aa be taken io.to consideration as ^ssinent of the coiupensation io. the tiierefdre qii<<i^<jii 'W^ff ^ 'fe^ "^iR^K ^r^tfiF?^?!?^! reafcons sons, I do not frad aiiy scope for ition awarcled by the Tribunal, appellaiit/claimaiit for euhaiiceBient ;, is liable to be dism-issed and is Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^ra^T^^ ^uil^ <M-tl^lM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000.