4 BEFORE,THEHON'BLEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARH BILASPUR M.A.fONO. /3l1^-72QO^ 18 APPELLANT GLAIMANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. DRIVER l0.^ 1 .0^<V:%^V^ ^•^ss^tt^^ ^fsi>y' <=. •fe^.VV" Sanjay Agr^.wal, aged about 33 years, son of Shri Pushkar Lal Agrawal, occupation - business, resident of Flat No. 12, Second Floor Manzil Garden Coiaplex, Motihagh Chow, Raipur (C.G.) Mahendra Sahu, son of Shri Jagbandhu Sahu, occupation — Truck Driver, resident of - near Station - Mahasaniund, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) M/s. Hariyana Road Carriers, Proprietor - Rajkum.ar Sharma, resident of Bhanpuri, TalisU and Distt. Raipur (CG) The New tndia Insurance Cqmpaiiy Limited, Divisional ofSce -No.2, through the Divisional Manager, i^eevan Beema Marg, Pandri, Raipur (C.(i.) MISCELLANEOUSAPPEALUNDERSECTION1730F THE MOTOR YEHIGLE ^CTf. 1988 faaiAw^sA^Tv\\&tkyjK_.___ y<eseB- o^d- OWNER 2. aii^r^n RptRft41|^<t ?S*tt<te trfsd t ''./s^ft»:i^iya^^0^ •3W;qpn?ra,~NtflIre.'?KiCT<-i3<" ' ' *<iini <n*<i<*i --.-.•3n^i'--:(i313T"-—^";l^.—:;":1^-'' ^s^ /^ ^..^....^.............»^.^ ^ ft^ST' sn^i TOIISR's^v: SB: HON. SHRI JUSTj^ ^EK.AiQARWAL 11-1-2010 Aditocate Shri S.K;Guha, Heard onJ.A. no. 1, in j01ii% fhe appeal. On due eoiisideratiolri, has suGceeded m explai4mg appeal. Tfaerefiare, the appIktatioE appeal is eondoned, Heard on admission.l 2. Appellant/clatmant compensatibn awasdedb^ Clainis Tribimal (FTC), R^ipur award dated 6-8-2007 3. Asagainstthe by the appellant/ claima|at Section 166 of fhe Mol sustained by him m fhe) Tnbunal awarded a compensation. caused ppB4ation is aSkswed. Delay jn filing the <*i*iFd*i1'i ffl*tCTt* "^ fs<<t <Ri'<^.i< i? ARii aii^i ;, fin'appellant. application for eonaoiiation 6f delay , I ani satisfied fhe delay fhe appellant m fiMng: t is seeldng eiihanceaaait of ihe fhe XHU1 Additioiial Motea- Accideat (for short "the Tribunal") vide pasfsed m GlaiDX Gase No. 36/2007. comp^nsatkui oifRs. 24,SO,OOQ/- tdaimed laima|3t ly fllli^^a GlaiuL petitioii^under j:or Vehicles Act fpr fhe injuries motor accldent on 1-8-20Q6, the t{rtal sum of Rs.- 67,QOO/- as •^: XI-HC-22 SII^I'^1 "f^ri^STT^ sb411* ^tt?a + -3"5T '^Wld'1!, ^•dl'y'lii. [««l11'M1< sn^r 'q^g; *<1*(?IT SD*<|cB 'WI. 200 fee^r' CT^T^RIIW^lfOT 4. Shri Guha, leamed argued that (he Tribunajl compensation of Rs.67,OOC claiinant sustalned multip] accident. 5. For fhe reasons best no doctor was exaxatned b( nature of the injuries sai(^ appellant/ claimant in the| those mjiules resulted in arj 6. The question whefhei by the claimant before th^ Doctor who issued fhe c< substaative evidence for fh{ came up for consideration tj< A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal l^ 189, wherein it was observ4( cotmsel "6. After hearinfe respondent-claima<] to support the or4ei find that ffaere w^s High Coi-irt to rely issued by Dr. the compensation permanent disabil^ty ciiitt[<n41Ti ^tWcff'^ f^^ <I«t<^i< '^3if;<raan^T for fhe appellant vehemenfly has erred ia awardiag low /- only, whereas the appeUant/ e serious injlines in fhc motor Ijnown to the appellant / claimant tfore the Tribunal to establish the to have been sustained by the Imotor accident and the fa.et that ^y pennanent disabUity. fhe medical certl&cate produced Tnbunal wifhout examirung the ^rtlfiicate can be relied upon as assessment of fhe compensation ;fore fhe Apex Court m ttie case of (teddy, reported in (200S) 12 SCC |d m para 6 as under: leanaed counsel for the (it who made an attempt er of the Hlgh Coiut, we .s no justification for fhe m the disability certificate Reddy and enhance by treating fhe injuiy as to be 45 per cent TKe Sudbakar i- + XI-HC-22 753 'tll'ill<'1'i<, a'nl'y'i®.facii'yy 3T^?r-lra^ -2 L ;c'^&-2> NiHprr thiich '^ 200 I^^ST' 311^1 ^H 1^'ti<=tt <HT^?T ^VtW ^^ 4 311^1 TRIIW ^lfel High Coiirt comitiitted gross error in overlooldng fhe fi Reddv's inedical ceftificate was reiected bv the Tnbunal for lipn-examination of that doctor. The Triburlal has determined the phvsical disabUitv a of the deoosition bf Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and High Court erred in eiihandng the com we aUow this appea^ order and restore Tribunal. The respo^ to withdraw the awarded by fhe set aside the impugaed fae award of the Clauns ident-Glaimant is aUowed ajnaount of compensatiori Trib|unal, tf it has not already 7. in (2008) 7 SCC 30S, rei| foUowing observations in paija certiUcate "II. The case was obtained known as to whethetr hospital treated f|] basis, such a certi&<; after the accident The aufhor of the been examined. Ut cr>N[fi<i1i ^H<nf'^I^l^l <FI|-(-$K ^sifgii aii^i bt that Dr. Sudhakar 15 per cent on fhe basis falr coinpensati.on. The disturbiw; the same and ensation. Consequenfly, been withdrawn." The Apex Coiirt ta a i'e|3ent dictiua tn the case of Rajesh Kumar aBas Raju v. Yudh^ir Sin^i and another, reported .erated fhe same view wifh the 11: in question in fhis ^fter two years. It is not the Civil Siirgeon of the |ie appellant. On what ;ate was issued two years 1|ook place 1s not known. said certificate had not iless the author of the certificate examindd himself, it was not admissible in ekddence. Whefher the disability at 60% •w^s calculated on fhe basis ^ [^^fig4 v\ 1 XI-HC-22 sn^i^i K-H'ti Sf^! 5h*f yf^a -h ~3TSl rf||<(|<ltl, ©Tll.M'Kc.(qWKiy _^3^^^v 'I^^T' an^r TOIRIT ^if^r thbt of the provision Compensation Act It is also not know competeat to issue does not appear before us had eith^ Tribunal or the Hig also the High Courl: the inaterials bro1 parties. In absence| been raised in reg4 the Workmen's oiir opimon, ex fac| same, m. oiu- be raised for fhe ftrd of the Workmen's c|r otherwise is not known. idn as to whether he was isuch a certi&cate. It even the contentions raised tr been raised before the ji Court. The Tribunal as fherefore, proceeded on •light on record by the |of any contention havtng 4rd to fhe applicabillty of Act which, in has no application, the 3|n, cannot be permitted to fct tmie." Co4ipensation spejnt 8. In the instant case, it amount the claimant considering the facts aif particiilarly when the doctc): the injmy and certfficates, been awarded as compensa^ 9. In view of the above the cases of A.P. SRTC v< Rajesh Kumar allas Rajuj (Supra), the certiflcate absence of examination oft neither admissible in e\fi cftN[d^Tf+1H<'li''^f^tdl iFif^K ^aiPgiisn^r ^s also not proved as to how much m treatment and, therefore, Ld ctrciimstances of (he case, has not been examined to prove an aaiount of Rs. 67,000/- has ion to the clatinant. luoted dicfa of the Apex Coiut in P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and v. Yudhvir Sln^i and another before the Tribunal in the he Doctor issulng (he certificate is idence nor can be taken into prcjduced [- <- ' ^" -HC-22 SlAn^iI R-fi't) sn^i ^*iicti 'yfia ^- + Tn[ -llMld'4, ^•dl'y'lli. (««'IW1< 11*<MT tBWd) 3:(I^'q^ „ . ^ i r-)/1^ ^vl5r^^-c>' 3^-7/1' "^I. 200 Iq^si' sii^r'reiiwdftn consideration as substantNe evidence for assessment of the rea$ons comper(saUo: compensation In the case. 10. For fhe foregoing enhancement of fhe 11. The appeal filed enhancement of the disDaissed and is hereby distitissed 12. No order as to costs. comp^nsatii ctii<jl<rt<flri *ii+i^*'^ l^idi <rai<-$i< ^aipOTan^r i, I do not find any scope for ^sation awarded by the Tribiinal. t>y the appellant/claimant for ^nsation, therefore, is liable to be N.K.Agrawal •