Laxman Thakur v. Rajendra Singh Chhabda & Ors.

S.B. Hon'bie Shri Justice N.K| 20.10.2009 Aaarwaj Shri Sunii Tripathi, Advocjate for appellant. Shri AK Athaley, Advocatje for respondent No. 2. Heard on admission. The instant appeal has seeking enhancement of comp^r ^een preferred by the appellant, snsation against the award dated

11.03.2008, passed by the A|: Tribunai (FTC), Pratappur, Sur^ case No. 40/07. ciditional Motor Accident Ciairns ^uja (for short Tribunal') In claim The brief facts of the cas|e according to appeliant are that, on 05.01.2004, while the appe| reglstration No. CG-15/ZA-025$ lant was coming by Bus bearing met with an accident, sustained injuries. The appeilant preferred ^n under Section 166 of ^n application before the Tribunal claiming Motor Vehicles Act, compensation to the tune of Rs. 74,168/- the injuries sustalned by him on account ofjthe said accident. The Tribunai, on a clos^ scrutiny of the evidence led by the materiai the parties, submissions ofthe parties, aw^rded as CQmpensation in favour of th{e appeilant. vaiiable on the record, tbtal amount of Rs. 5000,/- i.l :^'':^^'^ ;^.i^.:?'%::^: '^%.^'^:: ^i^ijl '^i^^^s^ itffifttfteySAIItii'l^iiiiI illlllliilBSII^iisliiSfiiJlijBiB iilffii®&%ilJIS%Si?IBIft§8iSjii l^^ ^KSSfe ^'.•^ -^, w-^^s^.. 1 XI-HC—78 3:n^r ^T'RprN? TT^TT 37T^T^7TFF r^- ^ 75ET ^l^lcnq, ^tll<H^(o, [®l<ni<H^< WHVM »»*<!<»» -^ 200 ^TI^TT TT^P ('ljGrf35^) ^HW^f^T 3??^?[ -±. <=hl^f<n<fll TW^ ^ fe^ iF^i^K ^'3tRfq3TT^T Shri Tripathi, learned c^ submit that although the Doetc| matter, but iooking to the fa| grievous injury, and amount av^ this appeal rnay be aliowed anc| 1 have heard the lear^ appeiiant and perused the reco| The Supreme Court in for the appeliant wouid lounsel <r has not been examined in this i|3t the appeilant sustained farded is shocking on lower side, [the compensation be enhanced. |ied counsei appearing for td. c^se of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Rsddy, reported in (2005) 12 under: pCC-189, observed in para 6 as counsel "6. After hearing leamecj for the respondent- to support the order of the claimant who made an attetnpt |ere was no justification for the HighCourt. We find that tit ^ability certificate issued by Dr. High Court to rely on the di| jhance the compensation by Sudhakar Reddy and er|i disability to be 45 per treating the injury as perr|ianent |itted gross error in overlooking cent. The High Coyrt comn| S^edd/s medicai certificate was the fact that Dr. Sudhakar rejected by the Tribunal| for non-examination of (as determined the physica! 11 doctor. the basis of the deposition of disability at 15 per cent 6r| a just and fair compensation. Dr. K.M. Mitra and awardet |n disturbing the same and The High Court erred |on. Consequently, we allow enhancing the compensat| ii|npugned order and restore the this appeai, set aside the The respondent-ciaimant is award ofthe Ciaims Tribur|al. of compensation awarded aiiowed to withdraw the ambunt by the Tribunai, if it has not| [already been withdrawn." The Tribuna! 's.^^ %i ^1^^^.-^^^^;1 ^^Xii';;^:'l.:^;^y:^% .^^?^'% M^SM ;;.^^:;y;^'^^^^'.;,':^^.^;^;:^;;.:^ Y'A:.::1£.'^:-.,-:;;..;;';.-1'-'^~' ^c ^•'s^ ^^^^ lx"^^^^":;^:y'^"'.'.'''.;'". ws-s ^ /f"!\ ^G. XI-HC—78 'T^r ^i^icn^, ^ti1^4i<o, [®i<nM^< WH^'ff^rHl^ "^ 200 'q^R' 3TT^?T ('^rf^Sf^T) 3TT^T ^FT Rrli<^ ?f^T 3TI^T'CTN^ cM^fa<flTl 1;7T^ff ^ fe^t <M^I< ^ ^Tq 3Ti^r 3>.— The Supreme Court in a| recent dicturn In v. Yudhvirl Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, observations in para 11 : reiterated| the same view wit'n the fQiiowing "11. The certjficate in que] after two years. it is not Surgeon of the hospita! tri basis, such a certificate v^ accident took piace is not certificate had not been o the certificate examined hi evidence. Whether the d on the basis of the p Cornpensation Act or oth^ not known as to whether h| a certificate. raised before us had ei| Tribuna! orthe High Court.j Court, therefore, proceed^ re.cord- by the parties.. having been raised in re^ Workmen's Compensation| facie has no appijcation, t!^ be permitted to be raised fcj ^tion in this was obtained known as to whether the Civil the appeilan'L On what as issued two years after the <nown. The author of the :amlned. Un!ess the author of mseif, it was not admissibie In sabiiity at 60% was calcuiated rovisions of the VVorkmen's !t is aiso rwise is not known. was competent to issue such rot appear that the contentions ther been raised before the The Tribunai as also the High on the materiais brought on absence of any contention ard to the appiicabiiity of the in our opinion, ex iAct which, e sarne, in our oplnlon, cannot T the first time.5' !t even does A Djvislon Bench of this High Court in ys. & a/io^ervide order dated 31SI March, 2009, piacing Its relia Court in the cases referred abo [ice upon the dicta of Supreme |/e heid in para 8 as under: "8. In vievv of the above in the cases of A.P. SRTC Iquoted ofthe'Apex-Courl'\ v. P. Thlmpal Recldy.\(supra) /?a^\ ^^ XI-HC—78 'S^f ^{WW^, ^itll^Ko, f®|<rll<4^< t(T*l<tl tb*ll<!h '•^ 200 3TT^r T5R7 (ll°lil<sl<^) ^^ ^T f<^i4) Tfsn ^TT^T 9h*iw ^^nw ^if?^ ^n^T <=bl^(d^H ^ll^d) "^f^t it?3ffim3^[ <^i<^i< and Rajesh Kumar alia^ anothar (supra), Vne Tribunal in the absencel issuing the certificate is ne| can be taken into consjdel'ation for assessment ofthe coml Raju v. Yudhvir Slngh and produced before the of examination of the Doctor ther admissibie in evidence nor as substantive evidence )ensation in the case." celtificate in a motor accident clairti Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, case, as per Section 1 68 of the lA/hat is important is that compensation to be awarded )y the Courts/Tribuna! should be just and proper compensation ] each case. it is neither a bounl For the reasons mentiont in the facts and circumstance of y nor charity. ad hereinabove, i do not find any scope for enhancement of th^ compensation awarded by the Tribunal. h^<«». Jhe appeal flled by the ippeiiant for enhancement of the c-ompensation is therefore iiabl] ^ to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sff Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge :r .'I., III iijl^illi .^•.•^. ^^:;.:^^^