INaBEmGHCODRTOEJGDICATBlffiAtBItASEUKGHHAtTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - 71^2— (W 200^ / (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNEiER SECTION 173 QE THE MOTOR VEfflCLES ACT, 1988) APPELLANT CLAIMANT '-'KESrONfiENTS: : NON-GLAIMANTS MOUmmed'Valdl Kliau S/o Mohnlmefl Hakik; Khan,: aged [about 50 years,: R/6- Pahadi Chowk, Qudhiyari, Police Station - Gudhiyari, Raipui-, Telisil &. DiE,trict-Raipur(C.G.): VERSUS 1. Hukum Dev Yadav S/o Baldev Yadav,. R7o- Mahato Rpad Lines,' Telgham ; JSIaka, Raipur, Police Statioli - ,:Gialij, , 'Tehsil&£)istrict-'Raipur(C.G.), ; . . 2. 'S.a^n\ais&. ^ .Mahato, R/o - Through 'Mahatp fRoad Lines, Telghaoi Naka, Raipur,^ PoliGe Station - Ganj, , Tehsil & Disfriet - ,.Raipur(C.G.) '••••k'''' 3. The National Insurance Gonapany ; Limited; Tfarough. Divisional -Manager, Divisioiial Offlce, G.E. Rfiad, Kfebin Mahal, Raipur, District- Raipyr (C;G.)' 4. . Smt. Asha Devi Mahato W76; Shri: : .Riaghunath MaKato, .R/p- Sambalpuf^ Ro^, Balangii-, .DistriGf. - •Balangu' (Oiissa) . ^ • '" . • 1 MEMORANDUMQEAP AL3tJN R^SEGIK) 1730ETHEl^ . 'CTEHIGl.ES;ACT.t988 '^" .' - :: ' • :" i; :'1: /'? ^^ <^' / ,®. / *w ^M^ 6yw /.yC^ y \.•^ *<i*«ni 9hw«s 'T=T '^wi»<i,wv\wie, hviw^t. __, ^A c ^6.-73L/^- 3^1 'q^^ (yt^al^E;) 311^1 ^T l<-fi«h WT »(l<i<IStt*1 ^iraT^iteisn^r qtl^^r'qhT *ti*mif^ "^^ Tf^R^H ^Tsffipiaii^i SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICE N.K. fcGARWAL Shri Shivendra Pandya, ^ 2. Appeltaiit/claiiaaat is coiapeiisation awarded by fh| dvocate, for the appeUaiit. seekhig enhaacement uf fhe IIIrd Additional Motor Accideiit Claiias Tribunal, Raipur (for sl3|ort "fh.e Tribunal') vide award dated 22-8-2006 passed ia Claim Ca^ No.32/2004. 3. As agaiast the coinpensation of Rs.5,85,000/ - clauned by the appellant/ claimant by filiag a fhe Motor Vehicles Act for th' motor accident on 2.4-6-2003, claim. petitioa uiider Sectioa. 166 of : iajuries sustaiaed by huii in the ic Tribunal awarded a total suin of Rs.1,07,900/- as coiupeusatio4.. 4. Learned counsel for th^ appeUaiit veheiaenfly argued fliat the Tribiuial has erred ia) awai-diiig low com.peasation of Rs.l,07,SOO/- ouly, whereas |the appeUaiit/' clauaaat sustamed niultiple serious iajuries ra fhe|iaotor accident. .5. For the tajuries, fhe apjieUaiit examiued Dr. Surn1 KhexrLka as AW-2, but he did not say ajnything with regari. to any disability or iajuries sustained by the a^plicaiit, What he has said is fhat he has issued a letter with rega|~d to the expenses incurred by fhe injured / appellaat. For the r^asons best known to fhe appeUant/ clainiaat, flie treatiag doctor \^as not exaiained before the TribT.rn.aS to establisb the natiire of fhe injuries said to have been sustaiaed was&T^tiTgCTRiK(RnRiifa—i.s/95—11 /^oos—i,00,000. \^ '3sr-4l''-llcl'il, (STil'y'ic, T°«yii'ylj,< wwii a»*ii<»» \ an^r '^^K (Tpi3^?) W^S qff (<-f ^sff sn^?r st>*ii<ft wim^iftg sii^i by the appellaat/ claiinaat| fhose irguries resulted in a4: 6. The question wbetliei) claimaat before tlie Tribu4. issued the certificate caii be| the assessinent of the before the Apex Court ia Reddy, reported ia (300S) 4 para 6 as under : lui the inotor accident aad fhe fact fhat y pennanent disabiUty. fhe inedical certificate produced by fhe lal wifhout examming fhe Doctor wlio relied upon as siibstanti.ve evideace for isation came up for cousideration l|he case of A,P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal [2 SCC 189, whereia it was obsenred ia coqipe "6. After hearl respondent-claima) support the order there was no rely on fhe Sudliakar Reddy by treating the inji be 45 per ceat. Th| £t error ia overlookix]); Reddy's laedical c Tribuiial for non-e Tribunal Iias dete at 15 per cent on coinpensation. T disturbing the compensation. Ci appeal, set aside the award of i^spondeut-claima ainount of com Tribuual, if it has 'liWf<-l''fl-1 lllcif'? fr3t<fat<;l< iTaifiman^i conasel for the \vho inade an atteiapt to ^f the High Coiu-t, we fiad that for tiie Hieb Gourt to certificate issued by Dr. ^id enhance the coiapensation |uy as permanent disabiMty to fc High Court coniinitted gross justi^ication disabpity g the fact fh.at Dr. Sudhakar iitificate was refected by the amiTiation of fhat doctor. The abiuned fhe. phvsical disability the basis of fhe deposition of Dr. K.M,. Mitra ajid ^_awarded a iust_and_.fair 'te _ High Court erred_. ia ajne and enhaaciiig: the |nsequeuUy, we aUow ttiis f4e uiipugaed order and restore (he Claims Tribunal. The tt is allowed to wifhdraw the ^ensation awarded by the j.ot already been wifhdrawn." wwQv^to gi;"ii-ui ira-iwiM— FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. 1'<S.-»-^'-'S.; '731 ^1141^.4, ®fl1y'|(o,f^CII'Hy *ti*ini «»*iitt> •WI.200 sn^r T?q? ('^35Rli) 3nS% ^it R-ii'* ^{T sn^n a»*ii^t wnw ^iftci aii^i 7. The Apex Court ia v. Yudhvia" 7 SCC 305, reiter, observations ia para 11 : "11. The was obtained afteit to whether the treated the certi&cate was accideut took placf the said certt&cat certtficate appei^ant Unless the aufho himself, it was fctQt adiaissible in evidence. disabplity issUe Whefher the the basis of the Compensation Act| is also not kno'l conipetent to does not appear beforc us had ei Tribunal or fhe H.y the High Court, inaterials brought| absence ofaay coi regard to ttie ap] Gom.pensation Act has no applicatio^i cannot be peniutt|e time." ittli 8. In fhe instent case, every aspect of ffae inatter; has not been examiiied to p •hWid'fl-f t|l><cff^fft%t<r^]«c]< ^siRinsn^i recent dictum. ia fhe case of , reported iu ited fhe saiae view with fhe following in question ia. this case two years. It is not known as ;ivil Siirgeon of fhe hospital •On what basis, such a ssued two years after fhe is not known.. The author of te had not been CXE r of fhe certificate exainined |flity at 60% was calculated on Iprovisious of fhe Wbrkmen's or ofherwise is not knowu. It tcn as to whefher he was such .a certificate. It even tfaat fhe conteutions raised fther been raised hefore fhe kh Court. The Tribiiiial as also Itherefore, proceeded on the on recoid by fhe parties. In itention having been raised iu. t?licability of fhe Workinen's ^ybich, ia our opinion, ex facie the same, ia our opinion, fcd to be raised for fhe the leamed Tribiinal after considei-ms particularly whea the treatLug doctor [yfe the injuiy aad medical certificates, iiil41<=fil^^N%iiutK->^ T—FS/9S—1 I /2008—1,00,000. &.. •% ^SaS- li 1 ''.!':"::'u5ft J' tv '^.^ y 31^1 ^I ft-fi'* wr ss^v aifi* -3%i-BTpn?rq, '^ftwre, (»4ciiy3,< *(I*(CTI a»*ii<(» SiI^I •q° ('i^S'5"^) TOiiw^iftasii^T wita*i wmf <f ft^ •^i^R ^affiinan^t an amouat ofRs. 1,07,9001'- has been awarded as compensation to the clajiaaat including R|s. 67,899/- on fhe head of niedical expenses. | 9. In. view of the above|quoted dicta of the Apex Coiirt ia the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P.1Thirupal Reddy (Supi-aj aad Raj'esh Kumar alias Raju v. Yui^ivir Sia^fci aad another (Supra), tfae Gertificate prbduced befoi|e fhe Tribunal in fhe absence of exainiaation of fiie Doctifcr, issuing ttie certifiGate is neither adiaissible ia evidence noi|~ can be talcen iato consideratioh as substaative evidence for a^sessinent of the coiapensation iii the case. , I 10. For the foregoiag re^sons, I do not find any scope for eahancement of the conipei!^ of the compensation, there. hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. iation awarded by fhe Tribuual. 11. TIie appeal ffled by ttje appeflant/claimaiit for eiihaacement Fore, is liable to be disniissed aad is Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge vwfFi^*tyvsv (ra-iKi'ii't—FS/as—11/2008—i ,00,000.