Prahlad Kumar v. Jaylal Sahu

Shri Rakesh Thakiir, A<|vocate fbr the appellaat. Sliri Ashish Gupta, Adv| Dcate, fbr respondents No. 1 aad 2» Shri Dashratii Gupta,

2.' AppeIlaat/claimaQ.t ^dvocate, for the respoudent No. 3. i^ enliaiicenient seekiag .fhe compensation awai'dcd by ^ Tribunal, Rajiisiadgaon (for s^ 14-11-2007 passed m M.A.C.i 3, As agauist fhe corapen| fhe appellaiit/ clauiiant by fili|ag of the Motor Vehicles Act for| motor accident on 23-2-20061 Additioiial Motor Accident CIamxs lort "the TribunaT") vide award clated p. No.136/2007. ^ation ofRs. 10,60,000/- clamied by a claiin petition under Sectioii 166 |tlie iojuries sustaiaed by iTim. iii fhe the'Tribunal awarded' a total suin.of Rs, 35,000/- as cb2npensatio4

4. Leanied counsel for fy^ appeUant vetieiaently argiied that tlie Tribunal has 1& awardiag low compensation of Rs. 35,000/- oiily, whereas |the appellant/ claiBiaiit sustained inultiple serious injuries ia fh| motor accident.

5. Per contra, leaoied coliiisel appeadug for the respdB.dents submit fliat iii the facts aad passed by Uie Tribunal is o.^ enliancement mid tlie appe^ doctor has not been examiiiiedl l^ircumstances ofthe case, the award [^equate aiid it does uot requii'e aiiy |1 deserves to be disniissed as fhe I to prove injury. ^ra^r^^^ ^"11^ <i<4-Jii<<ii<4—FS/9S—11/2008—i,oo,ooo. ^ ?, ^mwT^, 7^?rRJ^[ ^mw-i^te- •^200 Sfl^f^ (^Sj^) 3^^tft^r ^^r^tW .n','l,-f""flfn-<^","r-i Wtw^SttWt^f %mf?N^ ^wft t %^ x^ft t ^m w^

6. For fhe reasons bes{ doctor was exainiiied beford kuown tlie appeUaat / claiiuan.t 110 flie Tribunal to establish the nature of fhe iajuri.es said to have be^li in the aiotor accidesit and sustaiaed by tlie appellaiit/ clamiant |the fact that fhose iajuries resulted in aiiy peniiaiieiit disabiiity. 7. The question whetlieil the inedical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribu4al without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate cao. b4 reMed upou as siibstaative evidence for fhe assessmeut of fhe co3|ipensatic [ipensation caoie up for consideratiou lie case of A.P. SRTC v.P. Tfeirupal before tlie Apex Court iii Reddy, reported m (2005) |.2 BCC 189, whereio. itwas obseived m para 6 as under : ff6. After heaijmg learaed counsel respondent-clami^nt who niacle ao. attenipt to support fhe order ^f fhe High Court, we find fhat there was no jus^t&cation for the High Court to rcly on fhe disal^ilily certificate issued by Dr, Sudhakar Reddy and enhaace fhe comLpensation by treatmg fhe injuiy as pennanent disability to be 45 per cent TIie Hiph Court committed gross error ia overlookijag fhe fact fhat Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical fcertificate was rejected by the Tribunal for uon-examiaation of that doctor. The Tribunal Iia.s detQr^i^e^^ie^^hvBicQl disBbQity at 15 per cent on the basis oftiie depositi^^ Dr. K.M. Mitra aiid awarded a iust axid fair coinpensation. fhe i same disturbmg allow fhis coiiipensation. Cponseqzientiy, we appeal, set aside the impzigned orcler aud restore enhaiicmg The High Court '755T ^l'41<ri<4, ®Ti1'y<iG, [®l<rti-M'j,< WWITW^t% •^ 200 ^Ti^T 'q?RF (l^S^^) ^Rnw^ft^^i^r <^l^id4lr11 TIW^f ^ ^S <F'it^s< ^ajfm^n^r "^T 371^1 'TOT ^I^i 3?it?T sCTW tt< respondent'-clamianlj amiount of Tribuual, if it has M(^ Claims Tribimal. The is allowed to withdraw the awarded by alreadv been witlidrawn,9' coinp^nsation

8. The Apex Court iii a ^ ;cent dictum m the case of Rajesli Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhtir .Sisagh assd aaother,. repoxled m (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterat obsen/'ations ia para 11 : d the sa2iie view with the follownig isskied a 11. The certifi4 was obtained after t4vo to whefher the CNil tareated the appeUaitit. certificate was accident took place the said certificatel Unless flie author himsetf,^ it was n< Wheffaer fh.e disabiU^y the basis of the p3 Co23ipensatiou Act oj is also iiot kuowi conipetent to issue does not appear before us had eith|c Tnbunal or fhe High| the High Court, 22iaterials brought abseuce of aiiy coat^ regard to the app3 Conipensation Act has no application,| caiinot be permittec| time." ate iii question iii this case years. It is not known as Surgeon of the hospital. On what basis, such a two years after is not kaowu. The author of had not been exaisiiiied. bf the certificate exaaiiaed >t adinissible ia evideuce, at 60% was calculated on tovisions of the Workm.en?s otherwise is not knowii. It as to whether he was such a certificater^^t even tittat the contentious raised th|er been raised before the Court. The Tribunal as also tt|.erefore, proceeded on tlie record by the parties. In Otl tntion haviag been raised ui |cabiHty of tlie Workraen's wbich, w^iich, in our opiniou, ex facie fhe saaie, io. our opiaion, to be raised for the first ^m^r^^^ ^uii^ <i'ai-ti<liM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. '3^r ^it^iH^, ^nl^Ko, r®i<ni^^< <nwiT «»*ii€h "^l 200 ^rr^T Tra^ (^is^^4) SH^T'^i fti^icb 1TOT ^T^T sh^jch ^nw^frcr^ii^r

9. In fhe instant case, qii<<i^<jii 'fe^ "^iR^K 'W^ff ^r^tfiF?^?!?^! ^ ofthecase, particularlywhei^ ,^.|4 ^s^ prove tlie iajuiy* aad certlQc^ been awarded as Gqm.pensatk|: coijisiderin^ |isidering fhe facts and circuiiistaiices the doctor has not been examiaed to ktes, an aiiiount of Rs. 35,000/~ has Ldn to fhe claimajit.

10. In view of tlle above q| ca^es^of^A.P.,,S3S^C v. P. ^ Kumar alias Raju v. Yiidhtir |ioted dicta of ihe Apex Court in the 1'hirupal Reddy (Supra) aiid Rajesh Sissgla and asaother (Supra), certificate^ $)i@duced before examiiiation bf thc Doctorl fhe Tribunal in fhe absence of issuiag the certificate is ueifher adimssible in evidence nor ;aa be taken io.to consideration as siibstan.tive evidence for asst ^ssinent of the coiupensation io. the case.

11. •^!t , ^Fo^ ib% forcgoing enhaQcenieiit of the coinpeus^ reafcons sons, I do not frad aiiy scope for ition awarcled by the Tribunal,

12. The appeal filed by the| appellaiit/claimaiit for euhaiiceBient of tlie conipensatiou, ;, tiierefdre is liable to be dism-issed and is hereby dismissed. 13, No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^ . ^. ^ra^T ^^ ^uil^ <M-tl^lM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000.