1— ^ -A' c^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) /^ APPELLANT: :laimant M':^ .<^s^ ^^ .^^" ^•' ^ M.A. (o/r^/2oo9 ^ngiesench' Ghanshyam Dhruv, aged obout 28 years, S/o. Vishambher Lal Dhruv, R/o. •Y^- Village Chhuhiya, Charoda, P.S. Rajim, Post, Belar, Tahsil Gariaband, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /f<ION-CLAIMANTS ^" 1. Dinesh Kumar Singh, S/o. Triloki Nath Singh, aged about 25 years, R/o. New Subhashnagar, Tikarapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 1,, Manoj K. Singh S/o. Balmiki Singh, R/o. Manoj Kiriya Stores, Dhamtari Road, Siddharth Chowk, Tikarapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.), The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through The Regional Manager, Regional Office No.1, KatchhQriChowk, Jail Road, Roipur (C.G.), Miscellanceous ADpeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1994 ^T^r'^i ^w ^IT ^iff^lT ^"RW ^~^. ^ww^.w^w^, f^rray wTOr%i^-H-^"-"-l-^^--""""""wi;20Q^ ^?T "q^^ ( ^3^^) ¥^?w^f^3?Tr^r S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.1i( 11.11.2009 Shri Aditya Khare, Advo|;ate for appellant. None for respondents. Shri Hanuman Prasad Ajgrawal, Advocate for respondent. Heard on IA No. 1 , applj filing the appeal. On due consideration, The instant appeal has 17.07.2007, passed by the '^rr^feT^h ^R^yf ^F fe^ <r^'Hr '^^RR3^i . Aaarwal cation for condonation of delay in am satjsfied that the counsel for appellant has succeeded in ex|3laining the delay caused in filing this appeal. Accordingly IA N(3. 1 is allowed and delay caused in filing the appeal is hereby ccjndoned. Heard on admission. been preferred by the appellant, seeking enhancement of comF|ensation against the award dated iXth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur|(for short 'Tribunal') in claim case No. 31/07. ! The brief facts of the ca^e according to appellant are that, on 09.06.2006, the appellant! met with an accident with the Indica Car bearing registrationlNo. CG-04/H-1537, due to whteh the appellant sustained injuries, The appellant preferred ^n application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the j Motor Vehicles Act, daiming ~^r^i^ W^ ^m^T ^^RT^IT^—FS/95—11/200^—1,00,060. .^^FS^, ^^^ '""\ '^. %.^/ ^H^T^Frl^WF 'w1rw^?ip?w \7^ ^JpTT^pqf, '^t^Fff?, f^^i-Hy ITPRW^ •'^2003 [^r ^r^^ f^pff'I^6^^^ ^ilW^^f ^^T compensation to the tune o\ the parties, the material submissions of the parties,) <3^I^$<^^ ^l*(^{ if 'fe^l ^F^R ^ ^tRt?T ^rt?? Rs. 12,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account <|fthe said accjdent. The Tribunal, on a clo^e scrutiny of the evidence led by available on the record, and awarded total amount of Rs. 11,524,/- as compensation in 1{avour ofthe appellant. Learned counsei for ^he appellant would submit that although the Doctor has not |)een examined in this matter, but looking to the fact that the alpellant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded is shockpng on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the compensa^ion be enhanced. 1 have heard the lea|'ned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the rec^rd. The Supreme Court in ^ase ofA.P. SRTCv. P. TMrupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 1^ SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: 'l "6. After hearing learn^d counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an at(empt to support the order of the High Court. We find that^here was no justification for the High Court to rely on the (jlisability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as pefmanent disability to be 45 per cent. The HSgh Court comimitted gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakail Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. the Tribunal Shas determined the physical disability at 15 per cent tin the basis of the deposition of _L ^f^^-I^ s^^r3? ^!J"^T H^'fT^ff^—^S/95—11 /200K—^0(),000, .X.. ""t"^. ? ...^1':.-. '3~^? ^[<4H^, '^Tft^^j^, f^iTRy "svw^S^^s,...M..A^-....V4.^G-.--.^2009 ^?F1ER^(^3^^r^ SR^T'^T'^IW wn W^PR IFWF 's^rai:^^ ^^? r Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarc(e< The High Court erredj enhancing the compens^tion. this appeal, set aside theli award ofthe Claims Tribilnal. allowed to withdraw the ahiount by the Tribunal, if it has n{ |ed a just and fair compensation. jn disturbing the same and Consequently, we allow limpugned order and restore the The respondent-claimant is of compensation awarded )t already been withdrawn." The Supreme Court in Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhv|r (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterate(( observations in para 11 : after two years. It is no Surgeon of the hospital basis, such a certificate accident took place is no> certificate had not been the certificate examined ^>i^S^4h^w<?ff ^ fe^ ^N^R ^-^tfwsn^i ^ recent dictum in case of Rajesh Singh and another, reported in the same view with the following "11. The certificate in qu^stion in this case was obtained known as to whether the Civil (reated the appellant. On what |A/as issued two years after the known. The author of the said ^xamined. Unless the author of lliimself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the ^isability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the ^rovisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or othjerwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether Ifie was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does] not appear that the contentions raised before us had ^ither been raised before the Tribunal or the High Couri. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. |ln absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised fpr the first time." A ^g..^^»k^^..;y,^',^.^,, •i'f<ri^U^;fr<?^^H"^rU^RT^T<?—FS/95—11/200K--^00,000- ~^~ ^.^,^. s^^T^Nr ?l^i Wf^TWff^F ^. ^' K Sah^ '-T^ '^}<4!<rt4, ^Tli^j^, f^FTRTy w»?ir»..^.....H.u....4.v(..^...........^2oo <? 3Tt^7 -??^T (<^3^1^ ^l^iW^^T 3^1 -^l and Rajesh Kumar a//a Tribunal in the absence can be taken into consid Motor VeNcles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded ^T^y^ 'sm^f ^ 'ft^S' Tf^?p ^•3:5t^:[^^I A DMsion Bench of thi|s High Court jn case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sampa Saf^ju & anotherwde order dated 31st March, 2009, placing its reli^nce upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred ab^ve held in para 8 as under: "8. In vjew of the abov^ quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRT^ v. P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) ^ Raju v. Yudhvlr Sfngh and anottier (supra), the c^rtificate produced before the of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is n^ither admissible in evidence nor ration as substantive evidence for assessment ofthe conr|pensatjon in the case." In a motor accident claiijn case, as per Section 168 of the jwhat is important is that the |by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensationi in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bour^ty nor charity. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove; 1 do not find any scope for enhancement of th|e compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ! The appeal filed by the jappellant for enhancement of the j compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. i g^/_ N.K. Agrawal Judge K^^et^^wv-iS^K-^&^'-^:-.:..-^::^ ^^^^^^JII^r^r^H-^Ttt^—?<-s/95—11/2008—1.00,000.