^ ^ .^: IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C) No. \ [^O / 2009 Appellant Claimant Qt tJ>-M-\^ J^v ^.••' ^"'Sanju @ Sanjeev Mandavi, aged about 22 years, S/o Gyansingh Mandavi, R/o ^Village Thelkabod, Tahsil and Distt. Kanker ^ '•^. •:$^< ^- ^i^- ^espondents Driver and own l._ Insurer y' 2. Versus Narmada Prasad, aged about 24 yeas, S/o By Caste Raut T/o Village Tevsa Thana Bishrampuri, Disst. Kanker Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, Branch Office Heveaytreet Unit No. 1, Third Floor No. 23, Super Tank Road, Chhenai 600031 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 3qn^i^TksTw ^na^^n^ 'ITRW^^K •^^ ^TqToTq-, ^tt?F^, f®l<ni^^< .^AW..'J.ff...'J1.9c4--^200 ^ 3?^?T^W('rt^1) •^nw^^^i^ Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. AAarwal qOTfepN T(PTCTf-^ f^^ T^R?R i?3?f^H3?I^T 07-09-2009 Shri Puneet Ruparel, couns^i for the appeliant. Heard on admission. 2. The instant appeal js directecl against the award dated 10-08- 2009 seeking enhancement of comp^nsation passed by Motor Accjdent Claims Tribunai (for short 'the Tribun^il), Kanker, Di'strlct North Bastar in Ciaim Case No.10/2008 whereby |and whereunder an amount of Rs.25,800/- has been awarded as| compensation towards injuries sustained bythe appellant. |3. Brief facts of the case are| that the appellant on 12-06-2007 jat about 5.30 P.MI. near Vishrampuril respondent No.1 by driving the |motorcycie rashty and negligently d^shed the appellants motorcyde saring registration No.CG 04 CB $378 as a resutt of which the ippeilant sustained injuries. The appellant filed claim p^tition under Section 163-A of the lotor Vehides Act, 1988 (amended) ?mpensation to the tune of Rs.3,10,0p0/- against the driver/owner and isurer ofthe offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal onjappreciation of evidencs and 994 (for short 'the Act') claiming latenat availabJe on record, passed ttleaward of Rs.51,600/- but after jiolding that the appellant also contr|buted to the accident by 50% ^^^^^ 5{^n^T^Ht^t^—?:S/95—l 1 /2008-1 ,00,000. •3^'^TPTT^T^, 'g^hFT^, [®{<y<i^^< ^,^^....M...A..C,,..^..o..!..(.^^^ ^?T ^W (xi<3st3el^) 'a^T^T^IW 1TOT3T?^T^ri^ TCTW^feT^H^i 2-- awarded compensatlon of Rs.25,80Q/- for the injuries sustained by the appeilant along with interest @ 0% Iper annum from the date of claim petition tilE the date of actuaj paymentjagainst the respondents. 6. The oniy submjssion majje by Shn Puneet Ruprel, (earned counsef for the appeliant is that a!tho|jgh Doctor has not been examined So prove the injuries sustained in She ^ccident but looklng to the nature of Injuries sustalned by the appeilant ^nct the period for which appeliant remained hospitaiized, compensatjon shockingiy of iower side. 7. I have heard learned coL<nsel for the appeJianf and perused the record. 8. For the reasons best knjown to the appellant, he has not examlned the doctor to prove the injuijy sustained by him. s. (t is settied Jaw that th^ examination of doctor is neither admi^sibte In evidersce nor can be taken into consideration as substantlve compensation Jn the case. En view 4 view of the fact that nothing has been| amount awarded is inadequate, Jn th^ considered opinlon ofthis Couri:, the amount awarded by the tribunal is ^N^Nt;i "EW^ff ^ f^t Xf^1< ^ stRw s:n^T awarded bythe iearned Tribunal te Injury reporte in the absence of ^vtdence for assessment of the |f the settfed position of law and in I brought on record to show that the adequate. 10. The Supreme Court In cas^ of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thinipai Reddy, reported in (200S) 12 S^C-189, observed in para 6 as under: ^n^.^is^^^^^Ti^i- ?—FS/95—1 1 /2008—1.00,009. :4. N J "^' -^ 4<INd81W(ii^ "s^ "^ww^, ^-^ww, f^fray ..M.A..C.^...^..(?.;...t.L??...^200 ^ ^n^T 'q?^ (i^t:t^T) ^IT^l^T^i^ ^na^r^qN; ^^ 'FRT^R ^cT ^H^l tHere "6. After hearing (earned ciaimant who made an attei^pt High Court. We find that High Court to reiy on the di( Sudhakar Reddy and enhan^e the injury as permanent dis< High Court committed gross Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medic^ Tribuna! for non-examinatiorl has determined the physjcai| basis ofthe deposition of Drj and fair compensation. The| the same and enhancing the| we a!!ow this appeai, set restore the award of the Cial ciaimant is altowed to withdr^w awarded by the Tribunai, withdrawn." 11. The Supreme Court in a Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvar (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated observations in para 11 : had not been examined. Unl exammed himself, Jt was Whether the disabi'Jity at 6Q%| the provisions of the WorS| '^prf^Nt^ 'HF^?? ^ 'fe^ iN^K ^^f^T^sn^T counsel for the respondent- to support the order of the was no justjfication for the ^abiJity certificate issued by Dr. the compensation by treating ibjlity to be 45 per cent. The ^rror in overiooking the fact that certificate was rejected by the of that doctor. The Tribuna! |disabiiity at 15 per cent on the K.M. Mitra and awarded a just High Court erred in disturbing compensation. Consequently, ^side the impugned order and |ms Tribunai. The respondent- the amount of compensation if it has not aiready been I'ecent dictum in case of Rajesh pingh and another, reported in tjie same view with the following "11. The certificate in questjon in this case was obtained after two years. it is not kjnown as to whether the CivsS Surgeon of the hospital treate^i the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issue<ti two years after the accident took place is not known. Thje author pf the said certsficate ^ss the author of the certjficate |not admissjbie jn evjdence. was caSculatsd on the basis of ^men's CompensatEon Act or ^?^m^^?i^TI<^<ra'?t^ri^—FS/95—1 1 / 2008—1,00,009. ^ ^.l IIl^i ^l^l^T^W ^?T3?y^?^?W ??TOFIT^^i? -3^r '^|^id<4, ^Tl1<H41<o/^<rtl^< ,^..tt..A..c,y...,,.!.!..^^^ ^qfI^T TE?W (^t^^) ^^nw^isn^T ^- sudh otherwise is not known. It is| was competent to issue appear that the contentions I raised before the Tribunai oij a!so the High Court, theref<j> brought on record by thej contention having been the Workmen's Compensati^n fade has no application, permitted to be raised for th< thel same 12. A Djvision Bench of thisl Kumar Sahis vs. Sanipa Sah^ March, 2009, placing its relianc^ in the cases referred above held ] "8. In view of the above ^ the cases of A.P. SRTC v. Rajesh Kumar ailas Raju (suprs), the certificate prodi absence of examination of is nejther admissibie in ev consideration as substantive compensation in the case." 13. in a motor accident claim ^N^pN Tiis^?f ^ t^t <(^^i< '^SrtfCT 3?it^T also not known as to whether he a certificate. It even does not •aised before us had either been the High Court. The Tribunai as >re, proceeded on the materiais parties. in absence of any jn regard to the applicabiiity of Act which, in our opinion, ex in our opinion, cannot be lirst time." High Court in case of Pracfeep & a/io^er vide order dsted 31st upon the dicta of Supreme Court n para 8 as under: (uoted cticta of the Apex Courtin |P. Thsnspal RQddy (suprs) and ^. Yudhvir Singh and another l((iced before the Tribuna! In the t|ie Doctor issuing the certificate ^idence nor can be taken into jevidence for assessment of the case, as per Section 168 of the Motor VehicEes Act, 1988, ^hat is important is that the compensation to be awarded by j6he Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in th^ facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor c^arity. \v >iT¥^r^Si^?T$urr^?^3Rt^iit^—FS/95—11/2Q08—1,00,000. T ^IN^f^"^^' '3'rc? '^MTcT^, 'S^fiTFT^', [^^!-M(i< M A CCJ o-Jo, I) ^)j ••^2001 3Ti^r xral^F (^t^^r) ^n^i ^Y'f^ri^ 'TO? 3Ti^T^s*ii<^ Kvr ^^TW^^f an^T |14. For the reasons mentioned |scope for enhancement of the |Tribuna(. [15. The appeal fiied by the app|eljant jcompensation is therefore liabte to tf lorder as to costs. |16. No order as to costs. ^rofeNn 'wT^f ^f 1^?1' TP'I'^K ^?^R?H3?T^T perejnabove, I do not find any cpmpensation awarded by the for enhancement of the \Q and Is hereby dtemissed. No Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge -^ r^ m