is TSE uiw cm«s ^y eBawsfSG&ss «T BII^SPOR. H.A.HO. . . . / /. . . . .OF APPJBL&fflT y^lAIMAHT > /SMv'eharaa ®ewaagan» S/e.^.afc®Rateipaa Dewaagaax 55 yrs. . R/e» vlll, Bhanet» Tefa. Jagdaa.pur* Bi^tfeitBastar (G.Q,). ^' laefi-AeeHCAsrs ^^ ,<^': <^i V E & S U S Be^ Kar^ Sii.ngfa ^bdsur* ''S/Sn^afera'ssl.a^'^TKaJcur.'Teacher. Metgaaa, BeMnd ©opal.Hill i3"agdalgttr» Distfc. Bastar (C.Q.). Ncife^Qnal Xasuranee c;o» Itd. Stega^ ®f£i - Mi<tSlet@ Street ^aa.oia.tea*' tIaE0Qgft.:'s';'Br'aneh • Wt Nafej.oaal l&saraHce ce» 3.t;<a» Near saruBaaak et)et8E a£ave eea'trai BaHkt iTagdalpur, Bistt, Bagtar (e.9«)» MISeEIAEBGEQUS ABBEN. y/S.l73 0? THE ^TOX VEHICLE &eF. <RI^I VI Vwbh l^ff^<ti« tl'^1 ^HRfl St><fl^> *<i*iini fl>*ii«n "S^ -MIIKiq, ®Til*1'Ko,[q<11«y . ^^ "Wt20o3 -011^1 '<^<B ('jqI^IS^) C«ll<U<^rf^d 'aii^fl S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. lAaarwal 03.09.2009 Shri Santosh Bharat, Adv( Shrj, Raj Awasthy, Advpca| Heard on admission. ; The instant appeal has seeking enhancement of comp| 21.02.2003, passed by Motor A( Jagdalpur (for short 'Tribunal') and whereunder an amount of percent per annum has been of the appeliant. The: brieFfaets of the appellantmet with an accident \j?i No. MP 25/6590 ijue to ^ Motorcycle Driver, and pursuanqto The:appellant preferred under Section 166 of the compensation to the tune- o\ sustained by hiin on account of • TheTribunal, on eiose s( parties, the material available ^i<*lCT<ft<i Nw^i'E^ff^1^! <R>I^$K ^oifa*i 'afiSpff jcatefor the appellant. —° |e for respondent No. 2. ; jbeen preferred by the appellant, ^nsation against the award dafed ;cident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at iji claim case No. 191/01, whereby ps. 6000/- alongwith interest @ 9 afvarded as compensation in favour ctse ar& that,:on 28.12.1996, the \j?ith Motoreycle bearing registrati.on |h and negligent driVing pf the said accidentsustained injuries. »n application before the Tribuhal Motor Vehicles Act, claiming Rs. 1,15,OQO/- for the injuries ^aid accident. : srutiny of the evidence led by the ^n the record, and submissions of ^llU^ ?^r^ii"l)ffar<M-)I^H<j—FS/95 —11/2008—-1,00,000. 'S^l -W V)'rfW<\'S, W^Wff. tff<f<»!f%ais(a W^ 4^th ?:yi -'T^?' ^i:;r=r E TOnw:^feio!"w 'WlfepiW^WHf ^ fS^ Tf5R?n ^3?Rl*I3!R5T the parties, awarded total'amoujit of Rs. 6000/- as compensation in favour of the appellant. Shri Bharat, counsel fori the appellant would submit that although the Doctor has not t^een examined in this matter, but looking to the fact that the app^llant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded is shocking dn lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the compensation t^e enhanced. I have heard the learned ^ounsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. The Supreme Court in cjase of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 under: SCC-189, observed in para 6 as "6. After hearing leamed counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court. We find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we atlow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." ^ey^y^-^w-^?1^^-^. "3^ •<11<IIM<1, 8'TilyiS, tqCTKiy *<wni <i»*ii<i» "W( 200 diiioi ''ra^ ('ptaivi) dii^sii^if^-ii'* l^ff ^^r oii^i a**ii^> ^toi'in <rf^tl ^n^iH •ihWld^l<^*^ff'^ f^*<l <rai<^R ; ^'itfKffl ^flt^St ' ' TheSupreme Court in a|recent dictumin caseof Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvi^ (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated| observations in para 11 : after two years. It is not basis, such a certificate v] accident took place is not Singh and another, reported in the same view withthe following "11. TJie certificate in que^tion in this case was obtained known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital ti^ated the appellant. On what as issued twp years after the known. The author of thesaid certificate had notbeen ex4njned. Unlessthe authorofthe certificate examined him^lf; it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the di^ability at60% was calculated on; the basis of the provisiqns (>f the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not knc whether he was competen even does.notappear that had either beenraised befol The'Tribunal as also the H on the materials brought absence of any contention the applicability 6f the Wort in our opinion, ex facie ha^ opinion, cannot fcie permittec A Division Bench of thN March, 2009, placing its relianc wn. It is also not knowri as to- to issue such a certificate. - It the contentions raised before.us ethe Tnbunal orthe HighiC&urt.; . igh Court, therefore, pr&ceeded on record by;the parties.In having been raised in regard to |men's Compensation Act^which,; no application; the^same, in our ' to be raised for the first tirne." High Court in case of Pradfiep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahf& anoffiervide order dated 31 st in the cases referred above helc( in para 8as under: ^ i upon the dicta of Supreme Court "8. In view of the above the cases of A.P. SRTC v. Rajesh Kumar alias Raju ^uoteddicta ofthe Apex Court in \P. Thlrupal Reddy (supra) and v. Yudhvir Singh and another SW'&I Ml >isi"ll<!MT<M-li<t'li<—FS/9S—11/2008—1,00,000. 4 --T .r •?"'""%>, ^1.-' .• ;^^, "8SCT*' oii^i ^61 Ri-ii* ^l'iR'tis w <snq<i si>*ii«<* Sahu ^3^ ^wi<n<i, ©•al'M'is,R«'ii<iy *imvn ti>*<T<»» "W( 200 '»llS<l'V!^S (•i'lt^iyi) CttlWtR 'yE^a oii^ (supra), the certificate proc|uced absence of examination of is neither admissible in e1 consideration as substantivd compensation in the case." In-a motpr accident clainli Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, CQmpensation to be awarded b^| and "proper compensation in tt^ case. Itis neither a bounty nor <j For the reasons mention scope for enhancement of W, Tribunal. , ? , ^ The appeal filed :by the compensation is therefore liabl^ orderas to costs. ' : l:t*i<rfpt<il*i *ii*i<?if TF tswt <.P>i*^i< ^9ffRpTaffl^T '' before the Tribunal in the [he Doctor issuing the certificate ridence nor can be taken into evidence for assessment of the case, as per Section 168 of the whatis: important is that the the Courts/Tribunal shoyld be just e facts and circumstance of each ;harity. id hereinabove, 1 do not find any i compensation awarded by the appellant for ;enhancement of the to be and is Kereby dismissed. No Sd/- v N.K.Agrawal Judge WW'Q^ ^•Al'yUvW<W-!i4'li<<-—FS/95—l 1 /2008—1,00,000.