Raju v. Sunil Kumar

S,B, Hon'ble Shri Justice Nj 09.10.2009 K. Aaarwal Shri Ravindra Agrawal,] Advocate for appeliant. None for respondents. Heard on admission. The instant appeai ha^ seeking enhancement of corr| 14.03.2008, passed by the Janjgir-Champa (for short 'Tri The brief facts of the Cc on 26.03.2007, whiie the app Chandipara by bicycle, one been preferred by the appeilant, pensation against the award dated Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal )unal') in ciaimcase No. 80/07, se according to appellant are that, eilant was going from Pamgarh to Hero Honda Motorcycle, bearing § . registration No. CG-12/G-63E 9 dashed the appeilant, sustalned injurles. The appellant preferrec th€ under Sectlon 166 of an appllcation before the Tribunal Motor Vehicles Act, claiming eompensation to the tune >f Rs. 1,95,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account )f the said accident. The Trjbunal, on a clo; >e scrutiny of the evidence !ed by the parties, submissions of the materjal the parties 23,850,7- as compensation in avaiiabie on the reoord, awarded total amount of Rs. avouroftheappeilant. •^r^'X -HC—78 '3^r ^I^H^, ^iH-H<i<o, f«i<ni'M^< *IP1^1 ft»*lich :^ 200 a^T 'cra^ (licif^«l<iq) 3TT^T ^T fqni^ ^SH 3TT^T Sb^icft I^TW^^^T^T cbl^fd4l'1 'HW^ff ^f "fe^ i^3ffim3Ti^T <P»l'^K Shri Agrawai, Jearned counsel for the appellant wouid submit that although the Doc1|o br has not been examined in this matter, but looking to the f| the appellant sustained grievous injury, and amount a\ this appeal may be ailowed an|d [warded is shocking on lower side, the compensation beenhanced; 1 have heard the leal appeiiant and perused the rec<fl The Supreme Court in c| Reddy, reported in (2005) 12| under: |ned counsei appearing for the kd. |ase of-A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirtipai [SCC-189, observed in para 6 as counsel "6. After hearing learneji claimant who made an att< HighCourt. Wefindthat High Court to rely on the Sudhakar Reddy and treating the injury as per cent. The High Cpurt comr|nitted the fact that Dr. Sudhakar peddy rejected by the Tribuna| doctor. disability at 15 per cent o^ Dr. K.M. Mitra and award< The High Court erred enhancing the compensat this appeal, set aside the award of the CIaims Tribur aiiowed to withdraw the arrl bythe Tribuna!, if it has nol for the respondent- smpt to support the order of the fiere was no justification for the d|sability certificate issued by Dr. efihance the compensation by rjnanent disability to be 45 per gross error in overlooking ir peddy's medical certificate was for non-examination of |ias determined the physical the basis of the deposition of ^d a just and fair compensation. |in disturbing the same and (ion. Consequently, we aiiow ^npugned order and restore the (ai. The respondent-claimant is |ount of compensation awarded aiready been withdrawn." The Tribunal -T v'^ / / ^" '% '^>^\/: .......'^ v^.-.''->-' XI-HG—78 T^T ^i^Kn^, ^tIi<H^i<o, [^t^i^y WRC'ITWflch "^ 200 3TT^T TT^F ( ^f^^) ^TT^T^T'f^N' ^TT 3TT^T ^RN? ^Tc'ITW^rfiH ^^ chl^fd^l'1 ^Hd) "^ fe^ <^<^l< ^)'a^R3^?T The Supreme Court in recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvi Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, observations in para 11 : reiteratecj the same view with the following ; "11. The certificate in qu^ after two years. It is no| Surgeon of the hospital basis, such a certificate acddent took place is not certificate had not been the certificate examined evidence. Whetherthe on the basis of Compensation Act or not known as to whether a certificate. raised before us had Tribunal or the High Courl, Court, therefore, proceed| record by the parties. having been raised in Workmen's Compensatiof facie has no application, be permitted to be raised ^stion in this case was obtained known as to whether the Civil 1'eated the appeliant. On what |vas issued two years afler the 1 known. The author of the said b<amined. Unless the author of (imself, it was not admissibie in pisability at 60% was caiculated the Workmen's lirovisions of It is also |e was competent to issue such |not appear that the contentions tither been raised before the The Tribuna! as aiso the High l^d on the materials brought on |n absence of any contention re^ard to the appiicability of the in our opinion, ex t|ie same, in our opinion, cannot fer the first time." oth^rwise is not known. It even doesl Act which, A Division Bench of thi i^ High Court in case of Prsdeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa SaA^i & a??offtervide order dated 31st March, 2009, placing its reii< Court in the cases referred ab^ |nce upon the dicta of Supreme ^ve heid in para 8 as under: "8. In view of the abov< in the cases of A.P. SRT^ quoted dicta ofthe Apex Court \ <p v- P. Thirupaf Reddy (supra) ,\p XI-HG—78 ^sf ^ii^id<LI, ^itilwKo, f®i<ni^y <n*1<rlT 5b*<l<»» '^200 '(T^I^ 31T^T ( ^(^<i^) ^TT^T ^T'f^thT ^T^H ^^ ^^\^ '^nw^n^n^r <=M^f^i<fl»i '^TTR^yf ^f fe^l iPt^K IF)'^tRpT 3?T?^T and Rajesh Kumar aii^ another (supra), Tribunal in the absencej issuing the certificate is can be taken into consicferation for assessment ofthe cortipensation i^ Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and c^rtificate produced before the of examination of the Doctor n^ither admissible in evidence nor as substantive evidence in the case." ^iniimiiililN, In a motor accident c!a9 Motor Vehides Act, 1988, j compensation to be awardedj tn case, as per Section 168 of the is important is that by the Courts/Tribunai shouid be in the facts and circumstance of just and proper compensatior each case. it is neither a boui|ity nor charity. For the reasons mentiohed hereinabove, i do not find any scope for enhancement of t^ |e compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appea! filed by the| appeliant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore iial; ie to be and is hereby dlsmissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge <1/' < S^hu