^. f:': '•T" fr. ^ BEFOBE THE HON'BLE ffiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGABH BILASPCR M.A.C. No. —^-J— /20((? ( Appellant ^^ff-" SHS^--' a^ ,vs ^ '^ ,1 Kunj Bihari Chandrakar, Aged about 28 years, S/o- Late Shri B.P.Chandrakar, Occupation-R.T.O. and Insurance Agent, R/o.Behind Ayurvedic College, near Gayatri hospital, Rohnipuram Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS Respondents: 1. Prem Singh, Aged about 30 years S/o-Kashmira Singh Paajabi, Occupation \ -Tmck Driver, R/o-Khursipar Bhilai, o-.T-'"^-Jv-/^" : . 1 ^••\'?A^^N " Tahsil and District Durg(C.G.) 2. Karatn Singh, S/o. Surendra Singh Occupatioa-Truck Owner, R/o-Kohka Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg(C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Branch Office-Nandini road, Bhilai; Through-Divisional Manager, Division Office-Katchheri Chowk, Jail road, Raipur(C.G.) MEMORANDAM OF APPEAL U/S.-173 OF THE M.V.ACT.1988.FOR ENHANCEMENT OF AWARD ...^^ '^^•^ ^< XI-HC-22 sii^i^ fa-ti?b 3Il|Sl ^f^ -yf^l 1-i- SB: HON. SHRTJUSTICE NJ -s^ ^iraRra, ^ftwre, 1«f«wi< 3(I^T 'q!ra?,. ^ u\ la' y\^ C. UQ- G,^v/^ \€ WKWShNlttl •^ (cKK^gr' Sii^i ^siiwdfet 7-l-201i Shil S.K. Giiha, Advocjate Shri Pankaj Agrawal, A^ Heard on I.A. no. 1, a^ •fiU iiumgm. .On due consideration, lias succeeded tn explainii Therefore, the applicat] appeal is condoned. Heard on admission. ^. AppeUant/ claimant cOmpensation awarded by tl| Claims Tribimal (FTC) Raip^ award dated 26-3-2007 passl 3. As agaiast the compei by the appeUaat/ claiaaant Section 166 of the Motor sustained by hiia in fhe mi Tribunal awarded atotal si 4. Shri Guha, learned cou argued that fhe Tritiunal uiil. <*wt<'i<h-< *<i*icif'^fe'st <Rli*ti< ^iSlfWlSII^I :, for appellant Ivocate for the respondent No. 3. plication for condonation of delav ^^-^^^ .the delay caused in filiiig the on is sIlQiwed. Delav in filing the ^ seefcing eahancement 'of U1C te 1 ltl1 Additional Motor Accident |.ir (for short "the Tribunal") vide (idin Clami Case No. 95/2004. ^sation of Rs.5,00,000/- clalmed |by filmg a claim petition luider Vehicles Act for the injuries <)tor accident on 10-1-2004, the ofRs.5,000/- as compeasation. i^xsei for fhe appeUant vehemently has erred in awarding lov/ ~ -—f^t^^fe^t yv -HC-22 Sff^iqiT R;-fi<(i sii^i S.tiHiet) <lf?tt 'S^ -l|WM*l, Ofll+f'16, I««'1iy'l< *<11CTI 9)*11<») 3n^?r VS^K _....Ai.AC..'u?6 b^}/6^ 200 ""n I^EET' sii^i TCirwafOT compensation of Rs.5,00q/- only, whereas the appeUant/ claimant sustained multi^le serious injuries in the motor .Dlt 5. Per contra, Shri Agra' the respondent no. 3 ^ circumstaaces of the case, is adequate and it does not] appeal deserves to be disa examined to prove mjur»r. 6. Forthe reasons best doctor was examiaed befij nature of the iiijuries sai^ appellant/ claimant in (he| fhose tnjuries resiilted hi 7. The question'tvhetlie] a^y by the claimant before th^ Doctor w-ho issued the cfc mtive evidence for tSt came up for consideration l^ 189, wherein it was observij: "6. After hearinfe learned counsel for the respondent-claima{ +Mld41*l *iH<'if'4f^^<Fq<$R ^aifiOTgn^r |ffal, leanied counsel appearm{ iubmits fhat in tlie faets |the award passed by the Tribt for and requlre any enhancement and the .issed as fhe doctor has not been ^riown fhe appeHant / claimaiit no >re the Tribunal to establish the 1 to haye been sustained by the motor;accident and the fact that ly permanent disabUity. the medical certi&cate produced ; Tribunal witliout examining fhe brtificate can be relied iipon as assessment of the epmpeiisatioii icfore the Apex Court in tiie cs-se of iy, reported in 12 SCC ;d in para 6 as under : ; tt 'it who made an attempt. -[^ife^ -HC-22 an^n^i K-u* an^i sh^ 'yfea +- 's^ •^M\v\{\, afll+i'is, (sicii'My *<l*«tl thHlch 3TI^?T 'cra^ _S^^L!^' ^f7 ^..^.............................^ ^ (c|'b<l!iT" 311^1 ?^ITW ^lflff to support the ord find that there wat High Cpurt to rely c| issued by Dr: Sudq fhe comperisation permanent disabllitjy IIigh Court comtuitted gross overlooking fhe ffcct ffaat Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical c^ the Tribunal for tQn-examination of fhat doctor. The Tribulial has determined the physical disabilitv of the deposition awarded a 1ust an High Gourt erred id erihanciag tlie coid 8. in\ we allow this apped order and restore Tribunal. The to withdraw the awarded by the Trilj been withdrawn." The Apex Court ina-r^ scc followuig observations in pai " 11. The case was obtained known as to whefh4 hospital treated t( basis, such a pertifijsa' ^il^'^I ^IHcff'^Ts^ <f<i-^f< i? aiPaT 3nS?i ^r. of tlie Higli Court, s no justifiGation for the in ,fhe disability certificate |akar Reddv and enhaace 3v freatHig fhe injuiy^ as to be 45 per cent. The error in rtfficate was reiected 15 per cent on fhe basis of Dr. K.M. Mitra and 1 fair com.pensation. The disturbuie tfae same and pensation. Consequently; l,!set aside the impugiied the award of the Claims adent-Glaimant is allowed im.ount of corapensation 'unal, ifit has aot already cent dictum in the case of.Rajes Iterated fhe same view with tall: certtpcate in question iii this after two vears. It is not ;r fhe Civil Surgeon of fhe ae appeUant. On what was issued two years ~-^A_ f; -HC-22 sn^t^i R-fi'* aii^i ?t»*ii<ft yf?a + 's^ •^W\v\ut, »fll+i<is, (qwi'yy 3n^9T i^3R , , ^&..^Ja.:...^}J^ ^.........:......................^ 200 *ll*«tlW1IT«1) fcl'b^iT' sn^i^araT^ift^ after fhe accident The author of th^ certincate examinl admissible u-i ifcvidence. Whether ths tlhat disabUifrv at 60% of the provisio3|is Coiapensation Act It is also not lcaol competent to issue) does not appear before us had eitljer Tribunal or the also the High Cou]|t, the materials parties. In absenc^ been ralsed in reg^ri the Workmen's our opinion, ex.facjie ssune, in our be raised for the wlas calculated on the basis isioitis 'of fhe taqie iiitet 9. In fhe instant case, it am.ouat the claiiuant CQnsidering the facts ailid when fhe doctetir ilie injury and certt&cates, awarded as compensation t 10. In view of the above the cases of A.P. SRTC v- *Wl<-l41-f t<11fif ti ft^t <Pn<$i< ^T aflf^ sn^5T took place is not knQ'ivn. said certificate had not iriess the author of fhe ;d himself. if was not br otherwise is not known. jyn as.to whether he was sueh a certificate.It even the contentions reused been raised before the Court. The Tribunal as 3U3|t, therefore, proceeded on br^ught on record by ; fhe of any contention having to the applicabuity of Colnpensation Act which, in facjie has no application, fhe inl(|>n, cannot be pemiit.ted to tune," |is also not proved as fo how rauch sp^nt ta treafment and, fherefore, circumstaiices of the case, has not been exainined to prove 1 ainount ofRs. 5,OOQ/- has been b the claioiant. quoted dicto of fhe Apex Court tn P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and [Tft^tfe^ l^^fr] 3^BL.s ^iv -^"^ •passiin sq o^ Sf; JOJ VIB <%T i/^UBtpddB sqi A(^ {Biinqijj, arp -^q pspjBA®COR-BS^ lou op i 'suo^ joj sdoos kTn Tf\ 'iTT'"tTrrclcl^ooT? T? 0-yit U33tE}. 3q UB3 JOU 90U3p^ ST s^'BO'gi^jao aip Sumssi JO^OOQ 3T.| aqi ui iBunquj^ 3ip sjojaq psoni] liS^IIP hD^B. l^ ^liStto]^ p>9) ^ JUhlk l-(kU]bllb •s^soo o^ SB japjo oj^ •gi sip Aqajaq si pire psssiBisip ?diiioo 3ip jo ^uams-ouBqua psiij IBsddB aqj, •ST jadmoo aipjo i.uaiasouBqua B3J gmogajoj arp jo^t ••[T: •QSB3 910. UI UOI'j.'BSUSdKIOO i.pirei.sqns S'B uop.Kiapisuoo A3 ui siqissitTpB jaqlpu HOI1BUTOJBX9 JO 30U3SqB ojd s^ogpjao si.p '(Bjdng) 3TfrJ° uajft >teii»a lisyic .fi^ay 001 'Ll* _ tblhtB lUhlh c?9//h9>q^ tbish i^ue >T>»11»>1»)'Sl>ft[lie 'hMhlh' te£ CajB tblhltS ik^ii.c. itiii-y lit&^lte .^s3^. ZZ-3H-