IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHArTISG^H_AL^U±ASaS ttisc.^peal No^t.—-of 2003.! ^^M-Sl ^irc^n Ktf.i S-arivi Agrawal son df Hajesh Kumar. Agrawal, aged 6 years, mxnor through- guardian Father-Rajesh Kumar Agrawal son of Shyamlal Agrawal aged 31 years, Resident of Village-Baradwar, Sub- Tahsil Ba Naya Baradwar Ward Nq.0 District-Jaijgir Chsapa (,C»Q.i) RESPWDENTS NOj-WPlICANTS ^ -v^-a_s_u_s_ : .1. Jitendra Kumar @ Ji-beshKumar /' ^ Niganiya, son of Kspur Chand Agrawal, aged 22 years Oceupa-tion- Business Resident of Sakti S.T.D.^ F||3.0, Ran maadir Conplex Hatci Chouk Sakti Tahsil Sakti, Distr.ict Janjg-ir Ghainpa CG^Ca,;). (^.''2«iNew India Insurance Company Ltd. Village Bilaspur, Rajendra Nagar Chouk Tahsil & Dis-trict- Bilaspur IC.G.)) 7g^fEA^DE&_SECTICN_yre_GF^OTOR_Wlg^^^_.^^. sn^i^iiteR; ^%^p fl1iii ^irw »&jiq» ^^ "MI<1I?1<I, ®Tll-y*l<»;fa?lf'Hy !^A <N6. -2_'^-3/o-3 «<iiCTjia»w< 3tI^?I lra^f ('iqI^I'tEf) "liSHwgftnam^i Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr Advocate, for fhe appellant. Shri Shailendra Sharma, Heard. . AppeUant/ claimaiit i^ seekmg enliancexueitt of ih: conipensation awarded by th^ Tribunal, Bilaspiu- (for short " 12-2002 passed m Claim Case appellaiit/ claijnaat by filmg a| the Motor Vehieles Act for tU inotor accideaton 11-1-2001, 53,971/- as coinpeasation wj azu-ium froin the date of applic^ 4. Shri Agi-awal, leamed| <t»i<il<l<l1i *ii*f<i?^ 'fetSt <f^^l< •^affimsii^ A( '. wifli SBit. Ttleera Jaiswal, Adv. for the i^spondent No. 2. Additional Motor Accident Claiins (±ieTribunal") vide award dated |No.8/2002. 3. As against the coiapensa|tion ofRs.2,10,271/- claimed by the claim petition under Sectioa 165 of e iajui-ies sustaiaed by her ia fhe the Tribunal awarded a total of Rs. th interest at fhe rate of 7% per .tion. Sr. counsel fcr tfae appe.Uaiit yeheniently argued that the 'Ijribunal has erred in awarding low .conipensation of Rs.53,971^- only, whereas ,the appeUant/ f.1amiflnt sustained inultiple se^ious injiuies ia tlie raotor accideat. 5. Per contra, Shri Sharm4, learued counsel appeajAig for fhe respoadent no. 2 subinits thsjt in tlie facts aad circuiiistances of the case, the award passed by ffae Tribuaal is adequate aad it does ?;Ti^T:T^r^ ^"mw?^5Rf?ITfq—FS/95—11/2008—i,00,00^ -g^ET-^ll^ly)^, ^•dl'y-lR, fafll'd^ "g^ 200 an^i'wft'ih; wn3i)%?i»*iii' ail^l W* C^f^S?) '?WTW«^oft^?! , not require any .ealiaiicem.4nt aad fhe appeal deseryes to be dismissed as the doctor has d' &>. For tlie reasons best doctor was examined before tl' fhe iajuries said to have been m. the inotor accident aud fhji aiiy permaaent disability. 7. The question whether fl| claimaiit before fhe Tribiuiall issued the certi&cate caa be r< the assessiiient of fhe conip before fhe Apex Gourt in &< Reddy, reported ia (2005) 12 para 6 as under : wifepNtiiiRfi-ir-fe^tfwsn ^3ffilH3II^!I 3t been exsinined to prove injun'. iaiown fhe appellant / claimaiit no le Tribuiial to establish tlie nature of sustaiued by tfae appeUant/ claimaat fact that fhose nijuries residted in. .e inedical certificate produced by the without examituiig the Doctor who Ued upon as substaative evidence for snsation came up for consideration case of iTl1 ?CC 189, whei^in it was observed in. "6. After hearm^ learaed counsel for the respondent-claimaatjwho inade aa atteaipt to support fhe order of ihe High Court, we find that Tliere was no justific^tion for the High Court to rely on the disabilit(r certificate issued bv Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and| enhaace fae coinpensation by treatuig the injuryj as permaneut disability to be 45 per cent. The Hish Court coirunitted gross error ia. overlooking ttie fact fhat Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's luedical certfficate was reiected bv_the Tribunal for non-exadiiaation of fhat doctor. The Tnbuiial has determijned tiie physical disability at 15 per cent on fh.4' basis of fhe depositioa of Dr. K.: Mitra aiad coinpensation. The awarded a just and fair C'ourt erred in -ira^ftfr.)gCTisqw.RKCTra—FS/95—11 /zcos—i.oiypo. t --•;"& ^ '3'^ •<<i<ii<ri<4, ®Ti)-y^s,fa«iiyy,< *<W<1l9WWi 3iiip!i '^3^ ('i?!^*"^) ^S Sf^t sb*<)<ti distyrbiag' _the_, sadie_ a-ad _ealiaiicuig_ fhe compensation. Cou.s1 ap.peal, spt aside the i] th.e. av;ard of the] respondent-clamiaat ainount , of coinper^ Tnbimal,'' if it has not I ;quently, we allow fhis ijiipugned order and restore Clauns TribuB.al. The Is atlowed to witlidraw fhe jsauon awarded by tiie already beeii withdrawn." .-;'; -The'-'Apfex ;<2burt in a re| .303, reiteratec observations ia para 11 ; tW|3 " .11. The certifici; was obtaiaed after to whefher the Civil treated. the appeUan^ certificate was issuk accident took place is fhe said certificate Unless fhe author d him.self, it was no't pr(}visions Wheflier fhe disabilitt ttie basis of the Compensation Act orj is also not kuown] couipetent to issue does not appear th} before us had eith^r Tribunal or fhe High the High Court, fh^i materials brought ori absence of auy regard to fhe appUit; Coinpensation Act wt^ich contetition ttii<<fe<ili ^?*n-i?'^^Ss <f^t$s< '^siRpm^r f~^-^^ /~^<^-^--'s ^iT 3^^^.^ k-:llL illl.l.iliii JJJ. U-1C. <^cL75C Ui. £'^£^£•.5.1 Siagh aad another, reported iii the sanie view with. the following [te in questiou ia fhis case years. It is not kiiown as Surgeon of fhe Iiospital On what basis, such a ;d two vears after tlie not kaown. The author of had not been exi If fhe certificate exi admissible ui evidence. at 60% was calculated on of tlie Workiaen's otberwise is not known. It as to whether he was >uch a certi&cate. it even it fhe conteations raised been raised before tiie 3ourt. The Tribunal as also •refore, proceeded on fhe record by £he pEa-ti.es. In having been raised in •abality of •Qie Workiiien's i, in. our opiiiion, ex facie ?mT^T^^^s.BH<?i^ <M-JIRlira7—F'S/95—11/2008—l.OO-^O. u ^ •^ yr;?;.*^. !"%Ha t .f' -g-^ -3[TO?fq, y-dl-9'l'S, fadl-H^ i<WCT) tB*<i^a •WS, 200 ai^t'qawC'p^S1') <tii<ifci41-< tiiffii'ii'fttA<[ai«tlt iSsffimsti^ has no application, caxuiot be penaittec^ time." 9. In the iiistaat case, fhi every aspect of the inatter, p| been examinecl to pioVe fhe amount ofRs. 53,97l/- has b claim.aiit. 10. In view of fhe above qu cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Tl Kamar allas Raja v. Yudhvi certificate produced before examination of the Doctor adiuissible in evidence iior substantive evidence for asse the same, ia our opiaioa, to be raised for the first leai-aed Tribunal after considering prticulady wlien the doctor has aot injur}' aiid luedical cei-tificates, an 'ea awaided as compensation to the 1 [)ted dicta of fhe Apex Court ia the ^irupal Reddy (Supra) aad Rajesh Siagh asd aaother (Supra), flie the Tribunal in fae absence of Issuing the certificate is aeitlier cto be taken into consideration as jsiaent of the coinpeiisation. in fhe 11. For the foregoiag reaso^is, I do not find any scope for enhaxiceinent of the coiapensatlon awarded by fhe Tribuiial. 12. The appeal filed by the ajapeUant/claimant for enliaiiceiaeiit of the coinpensation, thereforej hereby disiuissed. 13. No order as to costs. |, is liable to be disraissed and is :^.-Sd/-l;::,^^ N.K.Agrawal Judge •im^*;it>nTam<.ia(OaFlTi?ri<l—S;S/95—ll/200i!—1,00,600.