PABENoA v. RBsyom>»m^

SMT. <?««&soar W/o Sa®3a»ha»fearSo^i Aged About 42 Ym. Owiser R/<? N^r Da^bam Mai^an Balodaba^ar. Distt. Rai$?ar.^C.G.) VEBsm^mQmmmmmcs CeA^S. Sraaich, ^itodafeaaar. 3&?»SyicftS^ii^tsA (C,G.}, insurer ^ym^v^E^^^mQ^ ry^c^'s^s.wy^SLys^t^w AC^.X^^ ~+ XI-HG—78 's^f r^NKri^ ^^kuKo, [®i<ni<4y NWdT^RTcb ^..i)(iA.......g..6...s...................^ 200 6 3n^?T T^K ('^35^T) •\"; 3U^T ^T'fyiN' ^fsn ^Tr^T^TRt^ '^^TW^fN^T^ <=M^fd<flT1 ^H<nl Jf ^S <P»1^K ^3fRW3^?T S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.M 21.10.2009 Aaarwal Shri Prakash Tiwari, Adv| 3cate for appeliant. None for respondent No.| 1 &2thoughserved. Shri Sourabh Sharma, A^ Ivocate for respondent No. 3. Heard on admission. The instant appeal has seeking enhancement of comp| 08.05.2006, pa^sed by the Ist Tribunai Baioda Bazar (for s^ 92/06. seen preferred by the appeliant, snsation against the award dated '\dditional Motor Accident CIaims 'Tribunal') in claim case No. The brief facts of the e according to appellant are that, on 25.08.04, v^hile the appeilan t was returning back to his home, met with an acddent by Jee 04/ZD-6209 due to rash and ne and pursuant to said accldent s The appellant preferred < under Section 166 of p bearing registration No. CG- gligent driving ofthe Jeep Driver, ustained grievous injuries. in application before the Tribunai Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident. The Tribunal, on a clos< scrutiny of the evidence ted by the partles, the materla! e vailable on the record, and ii^-" i ,/p^\ XI-HG—78 '3~osr ^ii^iid^ ^iTl^^Ko, [^cni^y WNCtl ft»*(8Ct» :'^ 200 3^\ -q^SF (ltcli^4^) ^n^r^f^rNT ^SH 3TTOT ^RW "^mw^f^f 3?i?t^i <=hl^id4l'1 'HW^Tf ^f 1^t <^i^i< '^3iRm^5T submissions of the parties, awarded tota! amount of Rs. 20,000,7- as compensation in f^' vour of the appellant. Shri Tiwari, learned c<t»unsel the appeliant would submit that although the Doct^ has not been examined in this looking to the f^< matter, but grievous injury, and amount this appea! may be aliowed ancl 1 have heard the iearil appeilant and perused the reco| The Supreme Court in c| Reddy, reported in (200S) 12 under: the appellant sustained a^arded Is shocking on lower side, I the compensation be enhanced. |ed counsei appearing for td. |se of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlmpai SCC-189, observed in para 6 as counse! "6. After hearing iearnec| daimant who made an High Court. We find that t^\ High Courtto rely on the di Sudhakar Reddy and treating the Injury as cent. The High Court the fact that Dr. Sudhakar rejected by the Tribunai doctor. The Tribunai disabiijty at 15 per cent on| Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded The Hjgh Court erred enhancing the compensatii this appeal, set aside the award of the Claims Tribuns for the respondent- atte|npt to support the order of the |ere was no justification for the ^ability certificate issued by Dr. en|iance the compensation by perntanent djsability to be 45 per oomnr|itted gross error in overiooking teddy's medical certificate was |for non-examination of |s determined the physica! jthe basis of the deposition of a just and fair compensation. disturbjng the same and it>n. Consequently, we allow ir|ipugned order and restore the The respondent-claimant is 'i::^-.."^ '\ ^. T XI-HG—78 'S^ ^WM^, ^tTl^^co, f^Krll^y HWWI ^hwvfn "^ 200 ^?T T^W ( yll<s»<t?) ^n^^^fN? °cy^T 3i?T^rr sh^ich ^<nw ^f?<? 3T^r ohl^fd^l'l WR^Tf ^ fe^t <pil^l< '^>3TfW3TT^T ailowed to withdraw the arrlount by the Tribunal, if it has not of compensation awarded aiready been withdrawn." The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir (2008) 7 SCC 305, observations in para 11: reiterated Singh and another, reported in :he same vlew with the foilowing "11. The certificate in quet it is not after two years. Surgeon of the hospjtal tr( basis, such a certificate v| accident took p!ace is not certificate had not been e>t the certjficate examined hi evidence. Whether the d| on the basis of Compensation Act or not known as to whether h< a certificate. it even does raised before us had ei Tribunal orthe High Court. Court, therefore, proceedep record by the parties. having been raisedin Workmen's Compensation| facie has no application, th| be permitted to be raised fo|- ^tlon in this case was obtained |<nown as to whether the Civil sated the appellant. On what fas issued two years after the cnown. The author of the said tamined. Unless the author of ilnseif. it was not admissibie in ^ability at 60% was caiculated 1-ovisions of the Workmen's ft is aiso was competent to issue such lot appear that the contentions ifher been raised before the The Tribunai as aiso the High on the materials brought on absence of any contention to the appiicability of the in our opinion, ex |Act which, s^ same, in our opinion, cannot is not known, the first time." otheh^ise re^rd A Division Bench of thisl High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahi^ March, 2009, placing its relia^ Court in the cases referred abol & anbffter vide order dated 31st |ice upon the dicta of Supreme fe heid in para 8 as under: ^: ^' XI-HC—78 -ysf ^ii^id'4, ^tilwiG, fsi<ni'y>l< HWVII sb*lich "^ 200 ^^'^^(rt^) ^^__5 ^fN? TT^T ^n^^ *^i<4» ^TiWFfft^ 3^T -^- cbl^id^l^ TTTR^f ^ is'^ <F'l<^i< ^3tRPT3TT^T "8. In view of the abov^ quoted in the cases of A.P. SRTQ and Rajesh Kumar a//asj the ce| anoffier (supra), in the absence Tribunal issuing the certificate is nei| can be taken into considel" for assessment of the comi dicta of the Apex Court v. P. Thsnspal Reddy (supra) Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and tificate produced before the >f examination of the Doctor her admissible in evidence nor ation as substantive evidence >ensation in the case." |i«irl» ^ !n a motor accident clain Motor Vehicies Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded just and proper compensation each case. it is neither a bount case, as per Section 1 68 of the 'y the Courts/Tribunai should be is important is that n the facts and circumstance of norcharity. Forthe reasons mention d hereinabove, ! do not find any scope for enhancement of th< compensation awarded by the Triburiai. The appeal filed by the compensation is therefore iiabl ppeliant for enhancement of the to be and is hereby dismissed. No orderasto costs. Sa lu- Sd/- N. K.Agarwal Judge