^? u ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUR AT BILASPURfC.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO/ " '2006 APPELLANT CLAIMANTS Sfngl& Bench Anirudh Kashyap S/o Yashwant Kashyap Aged about 30 years, R/o Purani Basti Newara, P.S. Newara Distt. Raipur(C.G.) -RESPONDENT *<NON-APPLICANT ^ VERSUS Sita Ram Nayar S/o Mehtab Umar R/oBudbud, P.S. Pali, ^L Distt- Korba(C.G.) (2) Smt. Laxmi Jain ^ R/o Sitamani Korba, „: Tah. & Distt. Korba(C.G.) - $'" g_J^) Natlona[ Insurance Co. Ltd. ^ ^ "T^ By Divisional Manager/ National Insurance Co. Ltd., G.E. Road; Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) ^^ r •w w^ Miscellaneous Appeal under/section 173 Motor Vehicle Act 1988 T XI-HC—78 ^n^r^Tf^t^ '^2n ^TR^T^H^ ?ST ^i<4i<n^, ©til^Ko,f®i^ii<Hlj,< . M[L ^<T-^ NIKdl ^^^--•^••^•••-•-^••^••-•••••--^ 200 ^n^r T^T (yif^^) '^TTW^f^T^^T SB. Hon'bie Shri Justice N.W. Aaarwai M(C|)P 21.10.2009 Shri SC Yerrna, Advocat<| Haard on M(C)P No. or deiay in filing the appeai. On due eonsideration, 1 appeliant has succeeded in ex| this appeal. Accordingly deiay caused In fiiing the appe? Heard on admission. The instant appea! has seeking enhancement of comp|6 19.12.2005, passed by the Ciaims Trlbunal Ralpur (for s| 02/05. The brief facts of the ca^ on 13.10.2004, the appeiiant| bearing registration No. CC| negjigent driving of the Tru^i accident sustained grievous inj|. The appellant preferred under Section 166 'of thel for appellant. 12^8/06, application for condonation ^m satisfied that the counsel for tiaining the deiay caused in fiiing No. 1298/06 is ailowed and Isherebycondoned. CM^fci<J1l '^TFT^if ^f fe^ ipsi^K ^3fRRa?T^r |3een preferred by the appeilant ^nsation against the award dated IIVth Additlonal Motor Accident |ort 'Tribunal') in claim case No. |e according to appellant are that, met with an accident by Truck l-12/0-0319 due to rash and Driver, and pursuant to said iMries. ^n application before the Tribunat Motor Vehjcles Act, clalming u4K XI-HC—78 TST ^II^Krl^, ^tfl^^Ko, f°3<r11<H^< *ll*«fl«»Nl<h -^ 200 ^^ ^T RTlJch ^T^T 3TI^T ^lNF k-:Tir[^. 3TT^?T T^F (^qf^<^T) ^nw^TT3?r^T -z <=M^(<n<i1i 'W^Jt "^ ie^ <P»I^I< '^5tRm3n^5T compensatlon to the tune of| sustained by him on account o| The i nDunsii, on CiOS-1 pciru^^, in^ material submSsslons of the parties, 17,000,/- as compensation In f^ Shri Verma, iearned. -^ subrnit that aithough the Doct^ rnatter, but looking to the f^ grievous injury, and amount'a^ appellant and psrused the rec^ T'ne Supreme Court ih ^ Rsddy, reported in (2005) 12 under: ciaimant who made an att^ Rs. 15,25,000/- for the injuries the accident. scrutlny of the evidence !ed by ivaiiabie on the record, and awarded total amount of Rs. ivour ofthe appeiiant. punsel for the appellant would )r has not examined In thls ict that the appeliant sustained ^'arded is shocking on iower side, thls rnay be ailowed an| the compensation be enhanced. 1 have heard the iearf^ed counsei appearing for the rd. ase of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thiriipai SCC-189, observed in para 6 as "6. After hearing learnetp counsei for the respondent- mpt to support the order of the . High Court. We find that ^iere was no justification for the High Court to re!y on the d|sability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and e|ihance the compensation by treating the injury as per the fact that Dr. Sudhakar rejected by the Tribuna nanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court comrjnitted gross error in overlooking Reddy's medical certificate was for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai j^as determined the physicai disabiiity at 15 per cent o|i the basis of the depo^ition of ^'^ T ff^'\ ••"^^.-. -,•:• XI-HC—78 'T^T T<ii^i<<i<4, yiti1'M<!<o, f«i<ni<y^< *11*(<fll (bHTcfr "^ 200 3TI^7T Tf^! ( ytf^^T) ^TT^T'5FT'R^NT T?SH ^TT^TsFHN? ^HVH^. Dr. K.M. Mitra and awardec The High Court erred enhancing the compensat this appeal, set aside the award of the Claims Tribun aiiowed to withdraw the am by the Tribunal, if jt has not The Supreme Court in a| Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir) (2008) 7 SCC 30S, reiterated observations in para 11 : a just and fair compensatlon. disturbing the same and |on. Consequentty, we allow ipugned order and restore che i^l. The respondent-claimant is i|>unt of compensation awarded lalready been withdrawn." |recent dictum in case of |Slngh and another, reported in. |he same view with the foijowlng "11. The certificate in que^ after two years. !t is not Surgeon of the hospitai tr basis, such a certiflcate ^ accident took place is not certificate had not been e> the certificate examined hj evidence. Whether the on the basis of the ^i Compensation Act or oth^i not known as to whether ht a certificate. it even does raised before us had e| Tribunal or the High Court| Court, therefore, proceed^ record by the parties. having been raised in re| Workmen's Compensatiort fade has no application, ti| be permitted to be raised ft or)j&iFci41Ti ^w^ if fest <f^^l< ^ ^fRR 3T?^?T ttion in thls case was obtained cnown as to whether the Clvil iated the appeliant. On what [as issued two years after the cnown. The author of the said tamined. Unless the author of Inself, it was not admissibie in |sability at 60% was caiculated rovisions of the Workmen's Irwise is not known. It is a!so was competent to issue such )ot appear that the contentions ther been raised before the The Tribunai as aiso the High d on the materials brought on absence of any contention |ard to the applicabiiity of the Act which, in our opinion, ex le same, in our opinion, cannot >rthe first time." .^.-^ =F 1 -TOI ^ \^v^ XI-HG—78 'TSf ^l^Kt^, y^l-f-i^Ko, [c<<rll-!-l^-(. ^^T'^T'f^t^ 'cTSH W^T ^iHic^ ^ffl ^ s^ *ll*lCTI sb<ff^ ^ 200 STI^T xra^' ("^f^5^) nu A Division Bench of this KumarSahu vs. Sarupa Sahis March, 2009, piacing its reiiani Court in the cases referred abov| "8. In view of the above ^ in the cases of A.P. SRTC and Rajesh Kumar allas Gr)HF<ri<fll '^R'cTf ^ f^zt <f^^l< <^'3TRROT^T st [-1igh Court in case of Pradeep |& anottervide order dated 31" |?e upon the dicta of Supreme 3 held in para 8 as under: luoted dicta of the Apex Court f. P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Raju v. YucShvif- Singh and another (supra), the cert|ficate produced before the Tribunal in the absence cjf examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neit(ier admissible in evidence nor can be taken into considerfction as substantive evidence forassessment of the comp^nsation in the case." In a motor accident elaim Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, \phat is important is that the compensation to be awarded fc just and proper compensation case, as per Section 168 of the iy the Courts/Tribunal should be n t'ne facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bount^ nor charity. For the reasons mentionl scope for enhancement of th^ ad hereinabove, I do not find any compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal fiieci by the compensation is therefore liab No order as to costs. ^ppeilant for enhancement of the [e to be and is hereby clismissed. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge