High Court · 2009

Shri A.L, Singroui, iearnedi c|3unsel for the appellant has submifted that the amount assessed by the is shockingiy on tov/er side in 'ribunal as much as the amount has not freen awarded inconsonance with the injuries susteined nor medicai b| oonsidered and a!so submitfed Is produced by the appeliant were that although Doctor has not been examined to prove the injuries su^tained in the accident but iookina to ^w^f f..'i-v^\r~iy\ff^iv^ u^_(-»*^>'b7a- ..J.' •--^— XI-HC—7S TS[ '<il<11CT<1, 0'fllyiG, fqOI'My . Al .^ iCcJ A/0 . 11-0 SII^ '<5W ^(^ STI^I ^itft^ <ftN^41^ Hf^tCU'^tS^^I^K ^affinsii^i the nature of injuries sustained by the appeiiant, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal n

6. ! have heard tearned |iay be enhanced. ^ounsel for the appeitant and the record.

7. For the reasons best known to the appellant, he has not examined the dQctor to prove the is settled law that 8. !t examination ofdoctor.is neither i^sjury sustained by him. |the injury reports in the absence of issibte in evidence nor can be Saken a4fm into consideration as substantn ('e evidence for assessment of compensation in the case. In vi^ view of the fact that noShing has b: jw of the settied position of iaw and in feen broufiht on record to show that ths amount awarded is inadequaSe,.i the considered opinion of this Court, the amount awarded by She tribufi^ The Supreme Court v. P. ^l is adequate. <j;ase of A.P. Reddy, reported in (2085) 1: •lfu-^ l^tf.,- s, observed in para 6 as under: "S. After hearing !earne| counse! ciaimant who made an att^mpt to support the order of the High CourS. We find thatl |there was no justification for the pisability certificate issued by Dr. Hlgh Court to rely on the Sudhakar Reddy and'enha| Vpce the compensation by treating the injury as permanent d| fsabitity to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gros| error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's med| |cai csrtificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non-examlnati] ^n of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physic| ^l disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of ipr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fa',r compensatton. T!t',s High Court errsd"!"; disturbing F XI-HC—78 ~ys( "4i<ii<n<i, yal'y'is, fqoi'yy rf). ft. Cc) ^o, (X)^/ ^ BI^I W K-U* ^s?T 3n^?T gi*i!<p - ^ E(bi^?dj!T!'l ^WV^ ^ \Q^ tf^l^K ^sifwsn^i the same and enhancing t!( we aliow this appeal, set restore the award of the C| claimant is allowed to withdt awarded by the Tribuna] withdrawn." le compensation. Consequently, aside the impugned order and |aims Tribunal. The respondent- raw the amount of compensatlon it has not already been

10. The Supreme Court in ^ recent dictum in case of Rajesh Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 30S, reiterated the same view with the followina observations in oara 1.1 : "11. !t The certificate in quef after w?o years. is not| Surgeon of the hospital trea< such a certificate was issil took piace is not known. haci not been examined. Uhi examined himsetf, it wad Whethsr the dissbliity at 601 the provisions of the W( otherwise is not known. It id was competent to issue suc appear that the contentions raised befor®the Tribunal oi| aiso ths High Court, theref()r brought on record by th< contention having been raisi| the Workmen's Compensat|on facie has no application, thej permitted to be raised forthi on in this case was obtained known as te whether the Clyil |ed the appeliant. On what basis, ^d hvo years after the accidsnt 'he author of the said certificate iess the author of the certificate not admissible in evidence. % was ca!cu!atsd o". the basis of [rkmen's Compensation Act or also not known as to whether he |h a certificate. It even does not Iraised before us had either been the High Court. The Tribunai as proceeded on the materials In absenc® of any id in regard to the applicabiiity of Act which, in our opinlon, ex same, in our opinion, cannot be first time." parties. '()re,

11. A Division Bench of thi High Court in case of Pradeep satiii vs. sa. t & another vide-order dated 31 T 'ysf •<<wwii, ynl'M'is, fqwK-iy . M.A' Cc) ^ . /^o 31^?i'<ra^' (" ^i^f<?^'T 'RW^ff ^? ^St •^'rt^R ^aifgn ail^T March, 2009, placing its relianci in the cases referred above held ^ upon the dicta of Supreme Court in para8 as under: "8.. In view of the above the cases of A.P. SRTC v. Rajesh Kumar alsas Raju (supra), the certificate absence of examination of is nelther admjs.sible in e\ consideration as substantiv4 compensatiori in the case." procfluced ^uoted dicta of the Apex Court in P. Thsnipa! Raddy (supra) and y. Yudhvir Singh and another before the Tnbuna! m the \he Doctor issuing the certificate ndence nor can be taken into evidence for assessment of the

12. !n a motor accident clairr case, as per Section 168 of the Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded b^ ana' proper compensation in th case. It is neither a bounty nor e important the Courts/Tribunal should be just e facts and circumstance of each

13. For the reasons mentioni scope for enhancement of th' ! do not flnd any id hereinabove, a compensation awarded by the Tribuhai.

14. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liablel to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

15. No orderasto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ':^HC—78 3)1^1 T[ wiaii^i k. Kvr 'v"^