Arun Kumar Sinha v. Jumar Rai
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Before the Tribunal the claimant examined himself alone in suppurt of his clalm as AW1. For the reasons known to the appsllant/ claimant no doctor was examined before the Tribunai p%??:shil<^h ths n^fi!r?s f^fthp iniiiri^i^ R^ld tn h?5v?s h^s?an ^iiistslr i311<«^t '•i-f.i.? tjiuiit^ <.-W…
- Para 55. The quesiion whether the medica! certiflcate produced by the ciaimant berore the Tribunal without examinlng the Doctor who issued the certificate can be reiied upon as substantive eyidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideratlon before the Apex Court in the…
Judgment
Shri Vivek F iUdhir Shri Su thore, counsei for the appei'am. }rawal, counse! for respondsnf No.2. ^S-.g.Vs.J'Si ^ The foliowing order of the Court was passed by 1 Fi-^j^i^V ^UpLi^ii 'w-c^e faSe -i.'t.-E-O, R~^' Appeiiant Arun Kumar Sinha is seeking enhancement of Iviotor the compensatlon awarded by the First Additiona! Accidents Claims Tribunai, Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.12.2005, passed in ciaim case No. 85/2004. ^ Q A?^, sn^iinRf f"hp r:nrftH!^n?i?if'inn c'lf R% 1 ^ RH nOO/-' r^lsimpr! hv c'~~StiS %^dii i-1.5i. di £ES ^u';wt i i^'s-'i St->££t.]IWii UE 5 \'C?> t-fJ ^•^-f\^-^\J".^''^f!~ t./tG-S.iil s ESr'u'i s-.-'^ fh^ ^nnpHsnf/ f'.lslmsHt hv fiiinn p. r^^im npfitifiH Hnd^r c^^r:T'inn 1RR 1 i:S.UL luf V ii.UE'U G- \/iG.itiS i^^t.i.LEUiE 'L;.!tU:<GE tw!i£?iB/li,2t»Jt 1 ^ iiS C*. iut';~i iS i s Cii; i i-.; :4^'EQ.U t'••^'^e ^ 'F'^/^Z ?1;/?-<>^,<k',tn^ Ey* OT IHB iviotcr vsniciss Acr, Tor iii8 injunss sus'oinsc DV HEm in xnc ?y*^?^ ^V\^:f"^ f^\ ^••'~>^'I~"t\y^. ^i^:
^^^ f^(h ? rf^ti^ .!^.4-^ F\ I^-^' '?j^T^ 4'^'"i,<^. in^^/' v~^\y^f \v^ 4'?**>: mn^nf ^r;^!riisnt fsn 1H 'fl 'T'DO^ thpi Trihiin^i ?3^/?=!?TJ^^ ^ fnt?:il ?£[.EH^ i S^Ui 3CtS CS'IV Sii *>i '•7U d i.U'lCSi i .^'u'''-/'^, »; i ^ ! C.'^'.ut''i^-c ^wt'C? s 1 : E ••-^Li.f' iSUiit {uEI 1 '-w'. i S. I l E of Rs.60,000/- as compensation alona with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tili the date of actuai payment.
Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counse! the appeilant vehementiy argued that the Tribuna! has errea in av»'arding iow compensation of Rs.60,000/- only though the appellant/ ciaimant sustained multlpie serious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident resutt'ng in permanent disability.
Before the Tribunal the claimant examined himself alone in suppurt of his clalm as AW1. For the reasons known to the appsllant/ claimant no doctor was examined before the Tribunai p%??:shil<^h ths n^fi!r?s f^fthp iniiiri^i^ R^ld tn h?5v?s h^s?an ^iiistslr i311<«^t '•i-f.i.? tjiuiit^ <.-W i SiLA '»' ti^ tu/^^tuil iiKi.^i:'^' ^/i •i-f^JSult.irflEi llrf'^ t.il^f i j th^ ?innsstl??nt/ .r^lp.ln^arii' li ii^ C3.V»J^?iii3ii ii./ Li'i'CEii 1 !©2Ifc ji i in thfs mntrir ^f^fiiripnt ^nri th?& fsrit th??t .CS^/WiU-Gi ii. G;.! !U hUC? iC£-url; i] iCSi. i,i 3-C i 3 iUiiUI tnose injunes resulted in any permanent ai.saDNrty.
The quesiion whether the medica! certiflcate produced by the ciaimant berore the Tribunal without examinlng the Doctor who issued the certificate can be reiied upon as substantive eyidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideratlon before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P, Thirupal Reddv, reported In (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was oDservea in para 8 as unaer: /"€^^ i'aj "B Affpr hp^nnn Ip^rnpd rsni.inp.i'^l fnr thps r^^nfjHE'^^nt- E iC'Ct.i E i i<-t ESSi i i'Gtn iw'U'UE £i?!'-i?c i *i-fE t,U S? 1 •^•£S's^'s^fii<ui Crt 5 i," claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find thaf there was no justification Tor th< High Court to reiy on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by trsating the Injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hsah ,Coyrt committed gross error overiooking_ihe fact that Dr.
Sudhakar Reddv'sjneajca! npiTifir^t^ ^A/S^ "i.'ri^i t.1 i f'lw'C;.;.^; W CiO rpi^fvp^rs l SiE'.../^/t.'i..;^ 'a^V th^ i.[ I't-r irihi'H^I ( il.^ii-it iCEE tVt tith^Si— nrsn- i s'sY^ETiinsfinn nf fh^T rii^rJ'or Th^ TrihsEn^i hi^?^ fi^t'^r'min^^ '•S.f'^.Cii tiSti!2.E.El-Jii •»/i L'iR^ lut'.^lt/^^fE • iiCi'iS' ^%^i.iuTl i i iti fS?' itu^U t iCti !%? ; ! I i i the physical disabjjiiy atj5 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.iV. Mitra and awarded a just and fair Sompensation. The High Court erred irt disturbing the same and enhanclng the compensation. Consequently, we ailow this appeal, set the impugned order and resfore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-c!aimant Is ailc.wed to vvithdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it has not aireadv been withdrawn. " The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of ~J " ~ - Viirihvlr ^lonh ^nfl ^in^thg£r r?s^Firtpd In s '&>^^w^3 S'l? aii 3^*fli; 3 ^i£^^^ SS.a 3'^J''^3 31&:£ i, i^^/^iL^^ If^ '^133 tt*^ ' ? (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11: "11.
The certjficate in question in this case was is not known as to whether ibtained after two years. the Civil Suraeon of the hospita! treated the appeliant. !t On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said cenificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not idmissibie in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calcuiated on the basls of the provislons of. the .-..>:.-^i^. % \ \,3j "-cy \^ Workmen's Compensatlon Act or othervi?ise Is not known. it is also not known as to •A'hether 'ne issue such a certificate. it even does not appear that the was competent to co'ntentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribuna! or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the Hlgh Court, materials broug'nt on record by the parties. any contentlon having been raised in regard to the therefore, proceeded on the !n absence of applicability of the Workmen's Compensafion Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time. " •
!n viev/ of the.above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupai Reddy (Supra) and Kumar v. Yudhvir Singh another (Supra), th< medlcai certificate an'd the disability certificate produced by the appellant/cla'mant before the Tribunal i.wjthout examining the Doctors vi/ho had issued those certlficates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensatlon in the case. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The appeai appellant/ ;!aimant inhancement of the compsnsation, therefore, !e t< ;S^IEilSy!»^U <^i IU ES ll&iiKUV US^HIlSte^U. FJ^^"?l?'it*S^\ f L^Sc?h^V^i rtj,~. iviu u; \rfi^r sc; tr\ /^r»t5;*< ^j't U'-Gi d-S LE»/ <>/l^t«3i.'S • SU&BU Sd/- Chief Jusdce Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge 1
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Workmen's Compensatlon Act; Workmen's Compensafion Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 22 Oct 2009. The bench was URICESH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.