IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR 2..^4- M. A. (C) APPELLANT NON-APPELLANTS: ^ /2008 Jliamu, S/o- Dasm, Aged about 30 years, Caste- Muria, R/o- Village- Surokhi, Patelpara, P.S.- Geedam, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS John Canady @ Gyru, S/o-ShriK.V. Antony, Aged abouf 39 years, R/o- Kanjis Kode, Kundara, Distt. Koylen, Kerala^ Present Address:- Geedam Bus Stand, Kerala Hotel, Geedam, P.S. - Geedam, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada, (Chhattisgarh). Proprietor- Ashwani Rajkumar Company Ltd., BusNo.C.G./17ZA/0151, R/o- Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpiu-, P.8.- Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, (Chhattisgarh). The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through- Branch Manager, Branch OfiBce,Main Road, Sadar Bazar, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, (Chhattisgarh). MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173(1} OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 fCLAIM APPEAL VALUAD AT Rs. 2,30,000/-)v^ XI-HC—78 HIH<!fT CT»*1(Ct» 'T^T r<{ww^, w^ww, f^dl-M^ . f^.A'Cc) i^o •2-3»(f^2008 ^n^T xra"2F (Tisrf35T^ST) 3TT^?t ^T R^ich "TOT W^T sn^Icr) ^ ^<nw ^af^T 3i?T^?i or)i^(^<fli 'WR^ff "^* 'fe^t <Pflt^i< ^stfw^^n^T S.B. Hon'bfe Shri Jusfice N.K. Aaarwal 17-09-2008 Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, copnsei for the appeliant. Shri P. Dutta, counsei for r^spondent No.3. Heard on admjssion. 2. This is daimant's appea! for^ award dated 12-11-2007 passed b1 Tribunai, South Bastar, Dantewar) Tribunai') jn Claim Case No.85/2) amount of Rs.28,900/- along with awarded by the Tribunal.for the inju^ lower S3Bde in as much as thel inconsonance with the injuries s| although Doctor has not been exami| the accident but looking to the r\ [nhancement of compensation in the ^ Additional Motor Accident CIaims ^ (hereinafter referred to as 'the p06 whereby and whereunder an [interest 6% per annum has been |es sustained by the appeiiant in the accident dated 25-02-2005. 3. Shri Paankaj Shrivastava, le^rhed counsel for the appel}ant has submitted that the amount assess^d by the Tribunal is shockjngiy on appeilant, the compensation award^d by the learned Tribunal may be enhanced. 4. record. I have heard learned co amount has not been awarded Listained and also submitted that ned to prove the injuries sustained in ature of injuries sustalned by the |«nselforthe parties and perused the J.; XI-HC—78 ^^ ^T R'licb WT 3T1^T 9r»^ICi>> ^ <nH<E!fII <S»t*ll<t» 75^ ^FTT^R, '^ft^TT?, [®l<ni<-t'j,< ^•4lcc)...<Nr.o..:...ZACfi 200^ a?n^?T '<T?^ (yii^^r) T^RTTW^lf^T -ol- 5. For the reasons best examlned the doctor to prove the | 6. !t is settEed faw thaf ti1< examination of doctor is neither into consideration as substantil compensatlon in the case. En vh vJew ofthe fact that nothing has 4 amount awarded Is inadequate, the amount awarded by the tribun{ 7. The Supreme Court in Reddy, reported in (2005) 12| under: "6. After hearing iearnetj daimant who made an High Court. Wefind that| High Court to rely on the Sudhakar Reddy and enha| the injury as.permanent d| High Court committed gros^ Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's med| Tribunal for non-examinatil has determined the physic^ basis of the depositron of and fair compensation. Tl the same and enhancing we aliow this appeal, set restore the award of the ciaimant is aljowed to with< awarded by the Tribuna| withdrawn." cbl^fd^^ TTTR^!if ^f fs^ <Fai^l< ifr3ffiW3^T known to the appelEant, he has not ijuries sustained by him. Injury reports in the absence of lmlssjb!e in evidence nor can be taken e evidence for assessment of the ^ of the settted position of Eaw and in ^en brought on record to show that the the considered opinion of this Court, tl is adequate. ase or' A.R SRTC v.P.Thinipal SCC-189, obsen/ed in para 6 as counsel for the respondent- att^mpt to support the order of the Ihere was no justification for the lisability certificate issued by Dr. a|ice the compensation by treating Isabiiity to be 45 per cent. The error in overlooking the fact that |ca! certificate was rejected by the >n of that doctor. The Tribunai i! disability at 15 per cent on the pr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just |e Hsgh Court erred in disturbsng |e compensation. Consequently, aside the impugnedorder and |alms Tribunal. The respondent- ^raw the amount of compensation if it has not already been + ^TP^II <St»Nt<t» -3-rc[ ^t^l^q, ^Tfl^'»l<o, {Q|<^1^< ^;.G)..,.AlU...y..,,,..?,.S.<l^^ ^ 3R^T1(T?W(Tpt3^1) 3?!^ ^5T ^J<<» WT3?H^T Sh*ll®ft ^<HWTltel 3T(^T - 3>- 8. The Supreme Court inj Kumar alias Raju v. Yudht (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterat( observations jn para 11 : rlot islsued "11. The certjficate in q| after fcft/oyears. It is Surgeon of the hospital tr< such a certificate was took place is not known. had not been examined. examined himself, it vi| Whether the di'sabjlity at the provisions of the otherwise is not knowh. was competent to issue appear that the contentio^ raised before the Tribunaj also the High Court, theij brought on record by contention having been rc the Workmen's Compen^ation facie has no applscatson, permitted to be raised for 9. A Divisjon Bench of Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa March, 2009, placing its relia in the cases referred above h< "8. In view of the abo^ the cases of A.P. SRTC ohl^id^R4 'RW^f ^f 'fel:2t'^R?R ^" 3?ifw 3??^?T a recent djctum in case of Rajesh 1r Singh and another, reported in d the same view with the following ^estion jn this case was obtained known as to whether the Civil ^ated the appeilant. On what basis, two years after the accident The author of the said certificate lUniess the author of the certificaSe las not admjssibie in evldence. |0% was caiculated on the basis of IVorkmen's Compensation Act or js also not kndwn as to whether he tuch a ceftifjcate. it even does not |s raised before us had either been or the High Court. The TribunaJ as |efore, proceeded on the materiaJs |he partles. in absence of any |ised in regard to the applicability of Act which, in our opjnjon, ex jhe same, in our Qpinion, cannot be thefirsttime." tttiis S^?y High Court in case of Pradeep & anotherv^e order dated 31st |ce upon the dicta of Supreme Court iid in para 8 as under: quoted dicta of the Apex Court In jy. P. Thsrups' Reddy (supra) and ^^ft^^^ ^TT^T <l^i^(M—FS/95—11 / 2008—1,00,000. T XI-HC—78 *11*1CTI tblich '3~5ET ^tl^Krj^ ^Tll^^Ko/ [®|<rll^^< ^ MAFC) Nto. ^^^^"'^200<? 3T^?r TI^F ( ytl^^) 37I^T'SFT ^FTW "cTO 3iTT^T s»>^icr) .^.. jia-I^ ^ Kvr ^RTTW ^Tf^T ^TT^T 4- Rajesh Kumar alias Raju\ (supra), the certificate procjuced absence of examinatjon of .•is"neM<I.Sffliissib!e jn el .dohgtt^r^ilCTPsls substaritivi ;..co^np^»satji@w1ithecase." .eg&yl... 10.,... ln..a.^iNrN§bidentdairrl ?«?§P^WW%t, 1988, y. Yucfhvir Singh ancf another before the Tribunal in the :he Doctor issuing the certificate /idence nor can be taken into evidence for assessment of the compeo.s.^njt^^e awarded b^ and proper cie^ensatjon in th| case. It is neithepa bounty nor c|harity. 11. For the reasons mention^d .,.:r^-nrtt ' ' . • scope jpr eo.bgQcement of th^ Trfbunal. 12. The appeal filed by the compensation js therefore llable order as tQ costs. N6 order asto cbNid^l'1 *ii*idf'^ fs^ <P»i'^i< ^fr stfim 3T^??T y case, as per Section 168 of the /vhat js jmportant is that the the Courts/TribunaE shouid be just facts and circumstance of each hereinabove, { do not find any compensatjon awarded by the ^ppellant for enhancement of the |o be and is hereby dismissed. Np dOStS. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge 1+