WKM ^- .* ^ I!IH1 Nt<3HCQURT'<3F^NHXTflS©ARHAtBILXSPy^ M.A.^ No.296 OF^OIO APPELI..ANT RgS^CTSIDENTS 1 KanniJat^/o^gar^aiPanjka.agect abQiA 2^years,,C^ste Panlka, ^ VJtjage-Ramnagar; |?.S. BjsMrampur; Tabsit Sur^pUF, 1 DisSt. Surguja :Versus1. •.•;•' .\1'.^:'-...'-^ . Brijlal S/o Ramraj jRaiwade, aged abput 25 years,j Rfo Viilage Beltikarj, P.S. Surajpur, Distt. Surgu{a(C.<3.)(Driver) Fekuram Rajwadel S/p Ramsai Rajwade, aged a^out 38 years, QccupattonService,) R/6 'ViiIsge BeitEkarsi R.S. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja(pwner) APPEALUNDERSEGTIQNiySOFTHEEVIOTORVEHtGI-E ACT.1988. fSJna<eBenGh:Hor»'bieNr.N.N.Aaabvai.J.l Present : ShrJ^.N.Randev.cQUnselfortheabpeiiant. ©RAl.ORQER (Passedon 30th dayofApril, 2010) Thejnstarrtappeattiasbeenprefert'edbyltheappejlantfbr seeking enhancementNGompeosatjGnagainsttheav^rddated 3Q-10-2009 passedbySec^nd^ddl.i^ Tribunal, (FT.C.), Sura|puF Distt. Surguja |(for shorf^^^^^ Trlbunal') jnclaim case No. ^i64/2pQ^ whereby^ an amount of Rs. 12^QQ/-a?oh9 with interest ^ 7^^^ per annum has be6nav^rdec3 as compensationlin l^ appeilant':','!,, L.^\';.,::,711'^ ' 2. TNe brieffactsof^ec^sea<>3^ on 09-10^06, ]theappellantv^J{eN^ with arTacejdentdue to rash a^ Qf the offending vehicle (Moforc^le) bearing registratiori No. M ^^isS^;^s'^^!i!SM^»fss!s'^ .6 ^' ^ C.G. 15-C/2862and pursuanttosald acddentisustatned^racture inhisrightfeg. 3. TheaRpeilant preferred an applicatjpn beforethe T'ribunal under Section 166 ^ the Motor Vehicles Act, cjaiming compensatipn to the tyne of Rs. 1,80,QOO/<^^^^fo sustajnec^byhjmonaccountofthesaidaccident; y 4. The Triteuna!, on a ctose scrutiny of the evicience led, matenaiplaced andsybmjssionsrnade.av^rtiedtptalsrnbuntof Rs. 12,000/- as compensation 1n favour ofthe appeHan^^^^^^ withjnterest@7,5%perannumfh3mthedateotapplicatj6n. 5. Learn^ coynsel for the appellant w^ although tMe Doctor has m3t been examlned irt this matte^ Jooking to the fact that the appelJanf syistainN Qrievoys (njury, andamountawardedbytlTeTnbunaNss^ this appeal may be atlowed and the compensation be suitably enhanced.^11^':,,,.' -.•.,,.:,.:.;. . ^. .-', „-;:,.- ' ,..1: i, . • 1:. • -' • 6. ! have heard the jearned counsel for the parties and perusedtherecord. i 7. The Supreme Cqurt in case of AP. SRTC v. P.ThSnipaf /tecft^ reported irr (200S) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "S. Mer he^ing leamed coyn^^ claimantwho madean attQmpttosupportfhelor^ HighCourt.Wefinclfhattterewasnojusttficati HighCourttorelyorTthedJsafoHityGertificatej^yedbyDr Sudhakar Reddy and Nihance the cornpensatiQn^^ ^^^ treating the injury as permanent ciisability^tCK be 45^^^^^^ cent. The High Court epmmitted .grbss error in pveriooking the fact, that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribuna!^ fo e^miriatioriofthatdc^to^TheTribuna^ the physjcal disability at 15 perGent ph the basis of^^^t^ deposition pf Dr, K.M; Mttra andawareled a Ju^ compensation. T'he High G^urt erred in^ same and enhancjng the compensatjpn. Conseqyentty, we ailow this appeal, set laside the jmpugned order and restore the award of the Claims "Tribunal. The respondent-claimantisallbwedtQwithdrawtheamountof pompensation awarded by the Tribuna!, if it has not already been withdrawn." ^" :^. ^ 8. TheSupreme Co^ Kumar aljas f^y v. YudhvirSing^andanother,report (2008) y^CC^O?, reiteratedth^ same viewlwith fhefc)!lown^ observationsinparallt^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^r "II.Thecertificatejnquestioninth after two yeareg Itiis^^^ Surgeon ^t^ tmsis, such a<^^ accidenttoQk place is notkrKwn.^ T^ certificate had nlot been^^^e^ the certificate examined hjmself^^^^^^^^^^ft^ e^idence. Whelherlh^disabi^ pn the basis bf^^^^^^^ CompensatiohA(^or<rtherNseis^^^^n krtQwna^towheth^^^^ certjficafe^ it evervdoes nGt^appearth^^^^ rajsed before us had eith^r been raiseci^^^^^^^^b^ TribunaIbrtheHighCourt.TheTnbunal^^^a^ Court, therefore, proceeded onith^^^^ record by the parties. In absence^^ haying been raised in rega^ Workmen's Compensation Aet ^hichy in our opihion, @x facie has no application,the same,^ be permiltted to be raised for the first time." ^.' '.i':ll../. '".•.-;'-.' •:1-.:': •••••'^•'' ', ...• •.•• •• ^ 9. A Diyision Bench crf this Hlgh Court injease of Practeep Ki/marSatoi^Sarii^S^ March, 2009, placjng its reliartce ypon the^ ^ CourtwtttecasesreferredaboveheIdinparaSasunder: "S.lnviewcrftheabovequoteddicteoftheApexCourt^^ in the cases c^A.ff. SftTiC'v. ^ TNh.y^jl^^ and f^esfi f^mw ^ias f^ am?t^ ^up^, the certificate^^^ p Tribunal in ie absence Qf examination Jof the Doctor issuingthecertjficateisneitheradmissibJejneyiciencenor can be taken jhto considerafion as substantive evidence forassessmehtofthecompensationinthecase." 10. Admittediy, the claimant in his own I wisdom did not examine Dpctortoprovetheinjurysustainedirttheaccidentand to prove the resultant Joss, In view of the djcta of the above referred cases, the iryury reports. certjficates produced^m absence ofexamination ofthe Doctor Jssuingjthe injury reports, certificates are neither admjssible in evideneel nor can be taken .,Y^;'' :'1;; f Kvr into consideratiQn as substantiveevjdenc^forenhancementof compensation inthecase. 11.jriamotoraccidentclaimcase,as^^^^^p^ Mbtor Ve^icles ^ct^^ compensation tp be awardect by th& C^ just and ^roper pompensation in the^ ^ each(^Se.lfrjsn?Jtheral30Uritynorcharity^^^1^ 12. For^ scope for enhancement 6f the compensatiotji a^ Trjbunaj..,::'l:;:::;-,,1-'.:: , l.:,'::- ,1/;.1. ;.i^'l'l:^f'''^^ 13. The appeal^^fi^ compeFtsatJon is therefore liable to t?e and is h^reby djsmjssed. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge <-