INtHEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT M.A. -L 3. 2^ /2003 NOffiTAPPLICANT ^ ^•^•' ^s^ ^•^c^ <^^-" 'SANTOSHKUMARUEKE.age about 33years| S/0 late shri Dhundwaji Ueke, I Occupation Asst. professor Govt.CoUage,khairagdrh Distt.-Rajaiiandgaon(C.G.) | VERSUS ajkudiar Manikpuri ^ Age 28years S/o Sukritdas Mamkpuri R/ojay ram nagar Bilaspur(C.G.) [DRTVER] ' 2. Davender singh Tirteja S/o DurshaBsiagb Tuteja R/ojay ramnagar Bilaspur(C.G.) [IEER^CWNI^ The New India Insurance Co.Ud. Rajendra Nagar chowk,Bilaspur^C?G.) PNSURER] AEBealXJ/S ITTofThe Motor Vehicle Act4988 ;—78 ;3nfsrw K-fi'h 'Vft 3TR?T?ft*l t 1 VfWW tb*1le»» 3^r'<<i<iici^, e)-al'M'li<o, (qoiyy ^^.....f4^.......^'^.....-....-^20oa sn^r'q^i' (1pffg^r) TOIIW^lfel 311^1 18.08.2009 ShriRajnish Singh Baghel The instant appeal has seeking enhancement of com^i 03.01.2003, passed by Addl. Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon ] No. 15/99, whereby and wher^ alongvvith interest @ 9 percent been awarded as compensation-ii( The brief facts of the applicant met an accident with) 26,/E/9995 due to rash and neglil pursuant to said accident susTain<| The applicant preferred under Section 166 of the compensation to the tiine of Rs, by him on accountofsaid accide) The Tribunal, on close si| parties, the material available onj parties, awarded tota! amount fayour oftb-e applicant. negli^ent ^iT<i?<'ral*i 'WRTf ^f 'fe1^ <Rq<^t< ^aifinsn^r Advocati? for the applicaot. 1 .been preferred by the applicant, lensation against the award dated [Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, |(for short 'Tribunal') in c.1aim case -^under an amount df Rs. 22,844/'- from 14.07,99 till the payment, has favour ofthe applicant. <tase are that, on 05.04.1999, the. Jeep bearing registration No, MP i^ent driving ofthe Jeep Driver, and |d injuries. ^n application before the Tribunal Motor Vehicles Act, claiming p,38,100./- for the injuries sustained ibt. if'Tutiny of the evidence led by the the record, and submissions ofthe c|f Rs. 22,844.'- as compensation in B i' -;N: i* :.;.l 4"1 i \ {HI^Iw Rs-fl'* sn^?T »>*iw I: .1. "•l:l:Tj'i::)illi WfCtl (t»NI<B '?5ET '"><l'41d'4, yTll<-f'i<o, fadl'Mll,< __....!yi&....Bi2^.. V^IQO^ 3TI^T •^RT (1°lfj«l<tT) TOIKK^ftn3)I^t °bi<<t<-)41-f •wreif4fyS <\'w<,n ip .3<fin ailSsi Shri Baghel, counsel fo^ the applicant would submit that although the Doctor has not 1t>een examined ia this matter, but looking to the fact that the app^llant sustained gravioiis injury and fracture in his rib on right side, ^hd amoimt awarded is shocking on lower side, this appeal may be enhanced. allowed and the compsnsation be I have heard the leamed ^ounsel appearing for the applicaat and penised the record. The Supreme Court in c; ;, reported in (2005) 12 SC< se of A.P. SRTC v. P. '-189, obseryed i" para 6 as under: "6. After hearing leamedl !counsel for the respondent- daimant wlio made an attei(npt to support tlie order of the High Court. We find that f|iere was no justification for the Higli Court to reiy on the di^ability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and ei-ihan4e the eompensation by treatiii^ tlie injury as pemiaiient disa^Uty to be 45 per cait. The High Court committed gross error|in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical Tribunal for non-examinatio has dstennined the physical basis ofthe deposition ofDr certificate was rejected by the 1 ofthat doctor. The Tribunal disability at 15 per cent on the K.M. Mitra aiid awarded a just and fair eompensation. The| High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the c|)mpensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside th^.impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribun^l. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amo+nt ofcompensation awarded by the Tribunal, ifit has not ah-e^dy been wiflidrawn." !-?1 i -Hr'r" •1..1W ^'!*-%» ,.i: itfis'a i». :!'3i'!iisB1 ,:.il'lri •^^. ^ !!SJ Xpi^—78 NIWIT (h*11<!n 3^'<ii<ii<yi4|, a>Ti1y'i<o, fsicliyy ,^A............l%2.............^,^ sn^i 'T^? (i?t3«iyi) ati^rw K-n* ^w sn^r »*i\^ •^ Compe|isation The Supreme Court in a Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvi] 7 SCC 305, reiterated observations in para 11; "11. The certificate in quest: two years. It is not known the hospital treated the ap] certificate was issued two y is not knowil. The author o examined. Unless the au1 himself, it was not admiss: disability at 60%was calcuL of the Workmen's knowii. It is also not fcaowi to issue such a certificate. conteations raised before us Tribunal or the High Court Court, therefore, proceedei record by the parties. In a been raised in regard to fhe Compensation Act which, applieation, tlie same, in ou be raised for the firsf time.' A Division. Bench of thi Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu ^ March,, 2009, placing its reliaace ths cases referred above held in i ae ^>i<if<n^Tt 'RTR^if ^f 'fex^ <Fq^$f< i?3iRn3ii^r recent dictum in case of Rajesh • Singh and another, reported in the same view with the followins on in this case was obtained after to whether flie Civil Surgeoa of >ellant. On what basis, such a iars after the aceident took place the said certificate had not been hor of the certificate examined ble in evidence. Whether the ited on the basis ofthe provisions Act or othermse is not as to whetlier he was competenf It even does not appear that the had either been raised before the The Tribunal as also the High on tiie materials brouglit 011 •>sence of any contention havin^ applicability ofthe Worknieii's n our opinion, ex facie has no - opinion, cannot be penTutted to s High Court in case of Pradeep & another vide order dated 31 upon the dicta ofSupreme Court in iara 8 as under: i^Niniirirli' *"».. C—78 JCT w Riiro Wfl |3)K?I snilti isti ,-i: r-i bl-': 11 •; <t... ^ Sahu '3'^ •^ll<41d'4, »Ti1y<is, l°«'ii'y'i< *11*1CTI (h*ll<»> "^2003 3n^iiR?r (iyfj«<<tr) ?Iklll(R yf?d <w^i ^ "8. Inviewoftheaboved' the c&ses of. A.P. SSTC v. Rajesh Kumttr alias Raju (supra), the certificate prodi( absence ofexamination ofthij neithei- adnussible in consideration as substantive compensation in the case." loted dicta ofthe Apex Court in P. Thtrupal Reddy (sitpra) and Yudhvir Singh and another ;ed before the Tribunal in the Doctor issuing the certificate is evidfeiice nor caii be takeii ihto levidence for assessment of the In a motor accident claiml Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded by and proper compensation in the f^ It is neither a bounty nor eharity; For the .reasons mentionec scope for enhancemcnt of the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the compensation is therefore liable order as to costs. 4ii<<ii-i<il-i ^MvS ^ fsc6 <Ffltii< ^aiRn aii^i cass, as per Section 168 of the vhat is importanti is that the he Courts/Tribunal should be just cts and circumstance of ea.ch case. hereinabove, I do not find any compensation awarded by the ppellant for enhaacement of the be and is hereby dismissed. No Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge