t -» ^ i¥. l^w^.y^^/"> s>.^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No.<^M.% /2005 / 'K APPELLANT CLAIMANT ^Rajmen Bai,Wd/o. Late Brylal, Tiwari, Aged ,about 55 years, Occupation Housewife, R/o. village Rakda, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur,Distt. Surguja (C.G.). RESPONDENTS 'NQN-APPUCANTS ^ .X /^ ^ERSUS ^ Shivnarayan, S/6. Amarsay, Aged about 26 years, Occupation- Driver, R/o. village Agrastpur, P.S. & TahsU Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (G.G.). (DRIVER) 2^^ Jawaharlal Gupta, S/o. La.tt 7^^mlal Gupta, Aged about 45 l years, OGCupation-Business, Owner of the vehicle, R/o. Main Road, Surajpur, P.S. & Talisil Surajpur, Disti-ict Surguj'a (C.G.). (OWNER) 3. ^ National Insurance Comuanv Y^. . . _„ ' --— r— Limited, Through Division Manager, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.). / (INSURER) (" »^' APPEAL U/S. ] 73 OF M.V. ACT POR THE ENHANCEMENT sn^i vs K-ii'* 't?sn 3'IT^T ^<i( W^W87:?f% ?, ®l1]'Hi!S,f'iil'rtl'H'K f/t^Mo. 2--~<5?//05- 3n^?[ '^^7 (>i?('S1S?') TRITW ^to'sn^f dFi'i<ri^4i*( nw'^ ^ ft^t <r^*$s< ^.sifOTan^f SB: HON. SHRI JUSTIC& N.K. AGAKWAL 19-11-2009 Shri Ashok Kumar phuUa, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Raj Awasthy, 4dv. for fhe respondent No. 3. 2. AppeUant/ claima^it isseekuig enhancement of the compensation awarded b^ award dated 25-11-2004 passed by IIITd Additional Motor 4ccldent Clainis Tribunal, Surajpiir (FTC), Distt. Sarguja p^ssed in Claim Case No. 41/2002 preferred by the claima^it tmder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herei^iafter referred to as the Act). 3. As against fhe comjpensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/clalmajnt by filing a claim petitfon under Section 166 of ihe M^tor Vehlcles Act for the iajuries sustained by appellant/cjlatmant in fhe motor accident on 24- 10-2000, the Tribunal ayvarded a total sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. i 4. Shri Ashok Kumdr Shiikla, leamed counsel for the appeUant vehemently argued fhat the Tribunal has erred m awardtng low compensation of Rs. 1,000/- only, whereas the claimant sustained multiple serious injuries jn fhe motor accident. ;^i,s^;<fKp'ri^;n.B.!i.?nEi—';s/»s—ii/20Ca—i.ou.ooo. '.-~S '--'!-4!<y)<i, Q-nly'l'i', fat'l!.H^< W^I'WI^DW wn 3n^isk*ii<t STI^SI 4^»('^it'tlS^) •BCTwateiai^r 5. Per contra, Shri Av^ the respondeut no. 3 cu-cumstances of the casje, the award passed by (he Tnbunal is adequate and it does rjof require any enhancement and tfae appeal desewes to be di] examined to prove injiiiy^ 6. For fhe reasons bed doctor was examiaed bj claimant in fhe motor acd 'cRp^^fN TRS^ ff tt^ ?F^s^ •^sifm'si^t ^asthi, leamed counsel appearing for submits that in the facts and smissed as fhe doctor has not been t known the appeHant / clamiant no ifore the Tribunal to establish the natiire of fhe injuries s^id to have been sustained by the ;ident and the fact fhat those injiiries resulted in any permane4t dlsabillty. 7. The question whetber fhe medical certtflcate produced by the claimant before ^he Tribunal wifhout examining the Doctor who issued fhe! certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence fbr |the assessmeirt of fhe compensation came up for consideratioti before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpdl Reddy, reportedin(2003) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : "6. After hearin^ leamed counsel for the respondent-claimant who made an attempt to support the order pf fhe High Court, we find that there was no justifibation for the High Court to rely on ffae disabUity ceirtificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and eidiancx: the compensation by treating ra.TC Ka-.lSFIi-KItTg^KCTTS—FS/95—11/230K—1.01), 003. -+ F, yifl]'M416, roit-ll-H'-i< an^r ^qr ('yiy^) aiI^TWfnw msii^iTKTO' the uijtuy as The High Coyrt permajient overiookmg the fa<j-t that Dr. Sudhakar ^edcfe's medical certificate \t nmi-examination ofl determined the phy^ical disabilitv at 15 per ceat on the basis of the defposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and 8. The Apex Court in ^ROTqt^ *TOHf ^ ^S •vf-V^: ii'siRTOsr'^T disability to be 45 per cent. coiimutted gross error in as reiected by the Tribunal for that doctor. The Tribunal has awarded a iust anfl fair .compensation. The High Court erred in distihTbirwi the same and enhandng the compensatlon. ] Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside tljie impugned order and restore the award of the Cl^ims Tribunal. The respondent- claimant is allowei& to withdraw the amount of compensation awarc^ed by the Tribunal, ifit has not already been wifhdr^wn." recent dictum in the case ofRajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yujdhvir Sin^i and anotber, reported in {2008) 7 SCC 30S, [reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 1 1 : "II. The certificate in question in fhis case was obtained after twoiyears. It is not knoron as to whefher (he Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certfficate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certi&cate had not been examined. Unless the aufhor ofthe certfficate examined hunself.l it was not admissible in evidence. Whefheri fhe calculated on fhe Ibasis disability at 60% was of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or ofherwise is not kaown. It is also not known as to whefher he was -.^t^ y ^r^ ^^f'^T^RT^it^—rS/95—11 /200^—l,Q<t,0()0. XI-HC—78 IW °.1i [t,111> •c!<n sn^i wqw '^- "3^'<)i<<i<n<i, 0Ti)y<i(o, fa<viiyy "^.200 3n^T'CRR? (^pf3^() sitch competent to issue not appear fhat the had eifher been raiscjd High Court. The Tribf therefore, proceeded record by the partles. having been raised m| the Workmen's opinlon, ex farie has our opiriion, canaot the first time." Comjiensation Kie eln 9. In fhe instant case, it 1 the injured remained in how much amount she s^} considering the facts an( particularly when tfae doctojr the injuiy and certfficates, awarded as compensation t4 10. In view of the above the cases of A.P. SRTC v.| Rajesfa Kumar alias Raju] (Supra), the certtGcate absence of examination neither adniissible in consideAtion as substantiite compensation in the case. ho^pital. ^piferih wrrif 4 ft'st <rai((i< ^sifgion^i a certiflcate. It even does contentions raised before us before fhe Tribunal or the uial as also fhe Hi^i Coiirt, ya the materials brought on In absence of any contention regard to the appUcabUily of Act which, in our no application, the same, in permitted to be raised for }s not proved asto how many days 1. It is also not proved as to (ent in treatment and, fherefore, jd clrcumstances of the case, 3Jr has not been examined to prove amozint ofRs. 1,000/- has been £heclaimaat. (luoted dicta of the Apex Court in P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and v. Yudhvir Siagfr and another before the Tribunal in the Doctor issutag the certificate is nor can be taken into evidence for assessiuent of the pro<puced oftbe eviklence ,< •' *' -,!f^~^^^s ^Hi^^>^ % i^.s. y VSSs--. '"'%% wnan^nwsnT £.£.^/6M !, yn!-<ji6, r'.<"!wy. an^i 4 C'pf^etC ^l^W^-f •WWff •8 t"?i ^.Slf^ai^! 11. For the foregoing enhancement offhe 12. The appeal ffled enhancement of the dismissed and is hereby 13. No order as to costs coDiF|ensation r^asons, I do not find any scope for awarded by the Tribunal. by the appellant/claimant for n^pensation, therefore, is liable to be coit^pensatlon, dismissed. Sd/- J N.K.Agrawav| Judge | <.;•"]•«>;(ra-ff^lIT?—VS/9S—11/23^ —1,!)(),00!>.