Ji^keshMasram v. Fiandradip Singh

S.B. Hon'bSe Shri Justice N.K 06.10.2009 .Aaarwal Shri Aditya Khare, Advo^ ate for appellant. None for respondent No| 1 though served. Shri Raj Awasthy, Advodates for respondent No. 2. Heard on admission. Since counsel Tor parti^s are ready to argue the matter finaliy, therefore heard finally. ] The instant appeal has| seeking enhancement of

02.02.2007, passed by the Tribunal (FTC), Durg (for 50/06, whereby and |been preferred by the appellant, comriensation against the award dated <°|dditional Motor Accident Claims 'Tribunal') in claim case No. whsreurlder an amount of Rs. 29,0007- aiongwith interest @ 6 percent| payment has been awarded ^ appellant. |from the date of application till its (s compensation in favour of the The brief facts of the cas on 22.05.05, while the appel bearing registration No. CG-( \e according to appellant are that, |ant was traveting in Qualis Car Q6/A-7313, met with an accident, sustained injuries. The appellant preferred under Section 166 of ^in application before the Tribunal Motor Vehicles Act, claiming ^ XI-HG—78 ~3'5E( -4i<<ici^, aiilwis, fayl'yy *flW1T thHKtt •^200 sn^i '^SK ('^rfg'i^i) •M^I^I h-fl* '(T^TSn^T stilficft '^ITWdftn OT^I <*il^I<vl'iH'l 'RTR^f ^ 'f^sl' ^•(•$K ^sTftna.ii^a compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account o f the said accident. The Tribunal, on a clos ,^ scrutiny of the evidence led by the material the parties, submissions of the parties, 29,000,/- ascompensation in fi Shri Khare, learned submit that although the Doct matter, but looking to the fi grievous injury, and amount a' this appeai may be allowed an have heard the leai appellant and perused the recc The Supreme Court in c Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 under: ^ivailable on the record, awarded total amount of Rs. ^vour of the appellant. ^unsel :br has not been examined in this the appetlant would the appellant sustained ^ct (varded is shocking on iower side, jl the compensation be enhanced. |ned counsel appearing for Ird. |ase of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal [SCC-189, observed in para 6 as ! "6. After hearing learne claimant who made an att' High Court. We find that High Court to rely on the c] Sudhakar Reddy and e treating the injury as cent. The High Court coml the fact that Dr. Sudhakarl rejected by the Tribund doctor. disabitity at 15 per cent o| The Tribunal |d counsel for the respondent- ^mpt to support the order of the (here was no justification for the lisability certificate issued by Dr. (ihance the compensation by pei^iianent disability to be 45 per Initted gross error in overiooking IReddy's medicalcertificate was for non-examination of |has determined the physical h the basis of the deppsition of XI-HG—78 ~T=T-41<41<rt'4, si'flly'is, Iqwwy MTHWI (*»*11<!h Wt 200 31^1 •q^7 (1°li-i»<<^l) 311^1 qH (t;4i<=h '^[ 3?T^T sh*ii4> ?^<IIWHft?t 311^1 +l<liff4l-1 tITIRif 'if festTRiR^R: ^sifina.iAsi Dr. K.M. Mitra andawardedl The High Court erred iit enhancing the compensati^ this appeal, set aside the in) award of the Claims Tribun^l allowed to withdraw the am<junt bythe Tribunal, if it has not a just and fair compensation. disturbing the same and in. Consequently, we allow pugned order and restore the The respondent-claimant is of compensation awarded Iready been withdrawn." The Supreme Court in a ecent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir iingh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, observations in para 11: reiterated t le same view with the followlng "11. It is not the prc The certificate in ques^ lon in this case was obtained after two years. khown as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital ^ted the appellant, On what tre^ issued two years after the basis.such a certificate w^ accident took place is not k< liown. The author of the said certificate had not been exa (^mined. Unless the author of the certificate examined hinfself, it was not admissible in dis^bility at 60% was calculated evidence. Whetherthe on the basis of the Workmen's Compensation Act or It is also |was competent to issue such not known as to whsther he It even does n< a certificate. ^t appear that the contentions raised before us had e ler been raised before the 'he TribMnal or the High Court. Tribunal as also the High [pn the materials brought on Court.therefore, proceeded absence of any contention In record by the parties. )a|-d to the applicability of the having been raised in regi in our opinion, ex Workmen's Compensation 4ict which, |same, in our opinion, cannot facie has no application, the •thefirsttime." be permitted to be raised for .__--. Ivisions of othent/ise is not known. l^- \J^ '"^.•- f- ^:'%st»M-HG—78 ~T5? '^l'Mld^, eitTly'ie, Tsxniyy wqni ai*iicb "^T. 200 sn^I 'WK (Tpf^q^t) <n^r w h-tt* w sn^v **<i+ ^aiW ^fe a^T^i ^l^ld^ TTTIRff "^f fe^. <Pnt'$i< ^aifitiraiiiSi A Division Bench of thij High Court in case of Pradeep KumarSahuvs. Sarupa Sah^i & anofftervide order dated 31st March, 2009, placing its reli^nce Court in the cases referred abdve upon the dicta of Supreme held in para 8 as under: "8. In view of the abov^ in the cases of A.P. SRTIf and Rafesh Kumar alia^ anottfer (supra), Tribunal in the absence issuirig the certificate is ne| can be taken intoconsid^ration for assessment ofthe combensatioh quoted dicta of the Apex Court v. P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and produced before the of examination of the Doctor ther admissible in evidence nor as substantive evidence in the case." cdtificate In a motor accident claiffi Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded just and proper compensation| eachcase. It isneither a bount is that is important case, as per Section 168 ofthe |what t>y the Courts/Tribunal should be |in the facts and circumstance of (y nor charity. Forthe reasons mentionled hereinabove, 1 do not find any scope for enhancement of thj ^ compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the compensation is therefore liab) ^ppellant for enhancement of the |e to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge