Anirudh Kashyap v. Sita Ram Nayar & Ors

SB. Hon'bie Shri Justice N.W. Aaarwai 21.10.2009 Shri SC Yerrna, Advocat<| for appellant. Haard on M(C)P No. 12^8/06, application for condonation or deiay in filing the appeai. On due eonsideration, 1 appeliant has succeeded in ex| this appeal. Accordingly M(C|)P ^m satisfied that the counsel for tiaining the deiay caused in fiiing No. 1298/06 is ailowed and deiay caused In fiiing the appe? Isherebycondoned. Heard on admission. The instant appea! has seeking enhancement of comp|6

19.12.2005, passed by the Ciaims Trlbunal Ralpur (for s| 02/05. The brief facts of the ca^ on 13.10.2004, the appeiiant| |3een preferred by the appeilant ^nsation against the award dated IIVth Additlonal Motor Accident 'Tribunal') in claim case No. |ort |e according to appellant are that, met with an accident by Truck bearing registration No. CC| l-12/0-0319 due to rash and negjigent driving of the Tru^i u4K Driver, and pursuant to said accident sustained grievous inj|. The appellant preferred under Section 166 'of iMries. ^n application before the Tribunat clalming Motor Vehjcles Act, XI-HC—78 TST ^II^Krl^, ^tfl^^Ko, f°3<r11<H^< *ll*«fl «»Nl<h -^ 200 3TT^?T T^F (^qf^<^T) ^^ ^T RTlJch ^T^T 3TI^T ^lNF ^nw^TT3?r^T -z <=M^(<n<i1i 'W^Jt "^ '^5tRm3n^5T ie^ <P»I^I< k-:Tir[^. compensatlon to the tune of| Rs. 15,25,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account o| The i nDunsii, on CiOS-1 accident. scrutlny of the evidence !ed by pciru^^, in^ material ivaiiabie on the record, submSsslons of the parties, 17,000,/- as compensation In f^ -^ Shri Verma, iearned. awarded total amount of Rs. ivour ofthe appeiiant. punsel the appellant would subrnit that aithough the Doct^ )r has not examined In thls rnatter, but looking to the f^ the appeliant sustained grievous injury, and amount'a^ rnay be ailowed an| the compensation be enhanced. ^'arded is shocking on iower side, 1 have heard the iearf^ed counsei appearing for appellant and psrused the rec^ T'ne Supreme Court ih ^ Rsddy, reported in (2005) 12 under: rd. ase of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thiriipai SCC-189, observed in para 6 as mpt to support the order of the . for the respondent- "6. After hearing learnetp counsei ciaimant who made an att^ High Court. We find that ^iere was no justification for the High Court to re!y on the d|sability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and e|ihance the compensation by nanent disability to be 45 per treating the injury as per cent. The High Court comrjnitted gross error in overlooking Reddy's medical certificate was the fact that Dr. Sudhakar for non-examination of rejected by the Tribuna j^as determined the physicai doctor. The Tribunai disabiiity at 15 per cent o|i the basis of the depo^ition of T ^'^ ff^'\ ••"^^.-. -,•:• XI-HC—78 'T^T T<ii^i<<i<4, yiti1'M<!<o, f«i<ni<y^< *11*(<fll (bHTcfr "^ 200 3TI^7T Tf^! ( ytf^^T) ^TT^T'5FT'R^NT T?SH ^TT^TsFHN? or)j&iFci41Ti ^w^ if fest <f^^l< ^ ^fRR 3T?^?T Dr. K.M. Mitra and awardec The High Court erred enhancing the compensat this appeal, set aside the award of the Claims Tribun aiiowed to withdraw the am by the Tribunal, if jt has not a just and fair compensatlon. disturbing the same and |on. Consequentty, we allow ipugned order and restore che i^l. The respondent-claimant is i|>unt of compensation awarded lalready been withdrawn." The Supreme Court in a| Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir) (2008) 7 SCC 30S, observations in para 11 : reiterated |recent dictum in case of |Slngh and another, reported in. |he same view with the foijowlng ^HVH^. "11. The certificate in que^ !t is not after two years. Surgeon of the hospitai tr basis, such a certiflcate ^ accident took place is not certificate had not been e> the certificate examined hj evidence. Whether the the ^i on the basis of Compensation Act or oth^i not known as to whether ht it even does a certificate. raised before us had e| Tribunal or the High Court| Court, therefore, proceed^ record by the parties. having been raised in re| Workmen's Compensatiort fade has no application, ti| be permitted to be raised ft ttion in thls case was obtained cnown as to whether the Clvil iated the appeliant. On what [as issued two years after the cnown. The author of the said tamined. Unless the author of Inself, it was not admissibie in |sability at 60% was caiculated the Workmen's rovisions of It is a!so Irwise is not known. was competent to issue such )ot appear that the contentions ther been raised before the The Tribunai as aiso the High d on the materials brought on absence of any contention |ard to the applicabiiity of the in our opinion, ex Act which, le same, in our opinion, cannot >rthe first time." .^.-^ -TOI 1 ^ \^v^ XI-HG—78 ^^T'^T'f^t^ 'cTSH W^T ^iHic^ ^ffl ~=F 'TSf ^l^Kt^, y^l-f-i^Ko, [c<<rll-!-l^-(. *ll*lCTI sb<ff^ ^ 200 STI^T xra^' ("^f^5^) Gr)HF<ri<fll '^R'cTf ^ f^zt <f^^l< <^'3TRROT^T A Division Bench of this KumarSahu vs. Sarupa Sahis March, 2009, piacing its reiiani Court in the cases referred abov| [-1 igh Court in case of Pradeep |& anottervide order dated 31" |?e upon the dicta of Supreme 3 held in para 8 as under: "8. luoted dicta of the Apex Court In view of the above ^ f. P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) in the cases of A.P. SRTC Raju v. YucShvif- Singh and and Rajesh Kumar allas the cert|ficate produced before the another (supra), in the absence cjf examination of the Doctor Tribunal issuing the certificate is neit(ier admissible in evidence nor can be taken into considerfction as substantive evidence forassessment of the comp^nsation in the case." In a motor accident elaim Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded fc case, as per Section 168 of the \phat iy the Courts/Tribunal should be is important is that just and proper compensation each case. It is neither a bount^ nor charity. n t'ne facts and circumstance of For the reasons mentionl ad hereinabove, I do not find any ^ scope for enhancement of th^ compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal fiieci by the compensation is therefore liab ^ppeilant for enhancement of the [e to be and is hereby clismissed. No order as to costs. s^ Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge