IN TME HIGH COURI ©FJUDICATURE At BILASPUR CE.(3 .?1 M.A. (C) No ____IlL2=__/200^ APPELLANTS: GLAIMENTS 1. Ji^keshMasram S/o Narayan Masram Aged about22Yeai-s. R/6MQuSingboardGolony,Bhila,Tah;& D'jst-Durg, C.G. . : VERSUS RESPONDENTS: (t-1- y*^Fiandradip Singh, OccupatiQn- Owner of NON-APPLICANTS ^/ehicle,quails/R/oQ.no.l S-2, Bhila, Tah& Dist- Durg,C.G. ', uniia, lan&uist-uurg, i-.i S^^.^'^0^^ 2- J^atkanal Insurance Co. Ltd., ^•^^^S^'£- yBrawoffi£e-;^ ^^^"^..^.•1-f-'"- ^. Branch 'office- Bhilai, throijgh, The Natibnal InsuranGe CQ. Ltd, mobin mahal, G.E- road^ RaipurC.G. MiscellanieousAbDealunGlerSeGtion 173 ofttie Motor ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ -He—78 sii^i ^i h-u'* wii sn^v ihii'* "TSET -4|4id-4, »tfl1'M*i<o, fa<'ii'y'j,< inTiw5Ritra?''!v'Mt*^"""t t" """"Wt,200^ an^t -qipfT (•^f^q) S.B. Hon'bSe Shri Justice N.K 06.10.2009 Shri Aditya Khare, Advo^ None for respondent No| Shri Raj Awasthy, Heard on admission. Since counsel Tor finaliy, therefore heard finally. ] The instant appeal has| seeking enhancement of 02.02.2007, passed by the Tribunal (FTC), Durg (for 50/06, whereby and aiongwith interest @ 6 percent| payment has been awarded ^ appellant. The brief facts of the cas on 22.05.05, while the appel bearing registration No. CG-( sustained injuries. The appellant preferred under Section 166 of the +i<4ii'i41'f w^vS 4^6 <Pii*<i< iTsifinan^r .Aaarwal ate for appellant. 1 though served. for respondent No. 2. Advodates parti^s are ready to argue the matter |been preferred by the appellant, comriensation against the award dated <°|dditional Motor Accident Claims 'Tribunal') in claim case No. whsreurlder an amount of Rs. 29,0007- |from the date of application till its (s compensation in favour of the \e according to appellant are that, |ant was traveting in Qualis Car Q6/A-7313, met with an accident, ^in application before the Tribunal Motor Vehicles Act, claiming ^ XI-HG—78 •M^I^Ih-fl* '(T^TSn^T stilficft ~3'5E( -4i<<ici^, aiilwis, fayl'yy *flW1T thHKtt •^200 sn^i '^SK ('^rfg'i^i) '^ITWdftn OT^I compensation to the tune of sustained by him on account o The Tribunal, on a clos the parties, the material submissions of the parties, 29,000,/- ascompensation in fi Shri Khare, learned submit that although the Doct matter, but looking to the fi grievous injury, and amount a' this appeai may be allowed an have heard the leai appellant and perused the recc The Supreme Court in c Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 under: ! "6. After hearing learne claimant who made an att' High Court. We find that High Court to rely on the c] Sudhakar Reddy and e treating the injury as cent. The High Court coml the fact that Dr. Sudhakarl rejected by the Tribund doctor. The Tribunal disabitity at 15 per cent o| <*il^I<vl'iH'l 'RTR^f^ 'f^sl' ^•(•$K ^sTftna.ii^a Rs. 18,00,000/- for the injuries f the said accident. ,^ scrutiny of the evidence led by ^ivailable on the record, and awarded total amount of Rs. ^vour of the appellant. ^unsel for the appetlant would :br has not been examined in this ^ct that the appellant sustained (varded is shocking on iower side, jl the compensation be enhanced. |ned counsel appearing for the Ird. |ase of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal [SCC-189, observed in para 6 as |d counsel for the respondent- ^mpt to support the order of the (here was no justification for the lisability certificate issued by Dr. (ihance the compensation by pei^iianent disability to be 45 per Initted gross error in overiooking IReddy's medicalcertificate was for non-examination of that |has determined the physical h the basis of the deppsition of XI-HG—78 ~T=T-41<41<rt'4, si'flly'is, Iqwwy MTHWI (*»*11<!h Wt 200 31^1 •q^7 (1°li-i»<<^l) 311^1 qH (t;4i<=h '^[ 3?T^T sh*ii4> ?^<IIWHft?t 311^1 Dr. K.M. Mitra andawardedl The High Court erred iit enhancing the compensati^ this appeal, set aside the in) award of the Claims Tribun^l allowed to withdraw the am<junt bythe Tribunal, if it has not The Supreme Court in a Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated t observations in para 11: wafc "11. The certificate in ques^ after two years. It is not Surgeon of the hospital tre^ basis.such a certificate w^ accident took place is not k< certificate had not been exa the certificate examined evidence. Whetherthe on the basis of the prc Compensation Act or not known as to whsther he a certificate. It even does n< raised before us had e TribMnal or the High Court. Court.therefore, proceeded record by the parties. In having been raised in regi Workmen's Compensation facie has no application, the be permitted to be raised for +l<liff4l-1 tITIRif 'if festTRiR^R: ^sifina.iAsi a just and fair compensation. disturbing the same and in. Consequently, we allow pugned order and restore the The respondent-claimant is of compensation awarded Iready been withdrawn." ecent dictum in case of Rajesh iingh and another, reported in le same view with the followlng lon in this case was obtained khown as to whether the Civil ^ted the appellant, On what issued two years after the liown. The author of the said (^mined. Unless the author of hinfself, it was not admissible in dis^bility at 60% was calculated Ivisions of the Workmen's othent/ise is not known. It is also |was competent to issue such ^t appear that the contentions ler been raised before the 'he Tribunal as also the High [pn the materials brought on absence of any contention )a|-d to the applicability of the 4ict which, in our opinion, ex |same, in our opinion, cannot •thefirsttime." .__--. l^- '"^.•- f- ^: '%st»M-HG—78 <n^rw h-tt* w sn^v **<i+ Sahu ~T5? '^l'Mld^, eitTly'ie, Tsxniyy wqni ai*iicb "^T. 200 sn^I 'WK (Tpf^q^t) ^aiW ^fe a^T^i A Division Bench of thij KumarSahuvs. Sarupa Sah^i March, 2009, placing its reli^nce Court in the cases referred abdve cdtificate "8. In view of the abov^ in the cases of A.P. SRTIf and Rafesh Kumar alia^ anottfer (supra), the Tribunal in the absence issuirig the certificate is ne| can be taken intoconsid^ration for assessment ofthe combensatioh In a motor accident claiffi Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded just and proper compensation| eachcase. It isneither a bount Forthe reasons mentionled scope for enhancement of thj Tribunal. The appeal filed by the compensation is therefore liab) No order as to costs. ^l^ld^ TTTIRff "^f fe^. <Pnt'$i< ^aifitiraiiiSi High Court in case of Pradeep & anofftervide order dated 31st upon the dicta of Supreme held in para 8 as under: quoted dicta of the Apex Court v. P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and produced before the of examination of the Doctor ther admissible in evidence nor as substantive evidence in the case." case, as per Section 168 ofthe |what is important is that the t>y the Courts/Tribunal should be |in the facts and circumstance of (y nor charity. hereinabove, 1 do not find any ^ compensation awarded by the ^ppellant for enhancement of the |e to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge \J^