Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Banjare v. Sita Ram Sahu and Others

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2009MA/214/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appellant's claim for enhancement of compensation in a motor accident case, holding that medical certificates issued without examining the authors are inadmissible and cannot be used to increase the award. The court applied Supreme Court precedents and rejected the claim summarily.

What did the court decide?

Power to condone delay in filing the conditional appeal was exercised; appeal for enhancement of compensation dismissed summarily, compensation of Tribunal cannot be enhanced.

Manoj Kumar Banjare Vs Sita Ram Sahu and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR DIVISION BENCH

¶2

CORAM:	HGN’ELE $HRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. 'u HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeai No. 214 of20§4
Appellant Ciaimant	Manoj Kumar Banjare S/o Sri Shyam Ratna Banjare, aged about 21 years, & R/o Distt. Jarwav Ra'EFSur Thana (c.93- Amanaka, Tahsil
	' VERSUS
Resnonden Non-apptic	Sita Ram Sahu S/o Sri Mansha Ram ’ Sahu, Occupatbn ^—Vehicle Owner, R/o Dabrapara — Bhiiai, Thana - Bhiiai, Distt. ^—Durg (C.G.) ts ams
	2 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office ^— Kachahari Chowk, Jail Rcad ^—Raipur (C.G.)
Mis	3 Fool Kumar Kewant S/o Sri Rupnath Kewat, aged about 32 years, R/o Khursipar ^—Bhiiai, Thana ^—Bhilai, Distt. Durg(C.G.) cellaneous AQQeal under Section 173 of the _ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Present :	Shri S.C. Verma & $hri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No2. ORDER (17m ^{July, 2909)}
The	following order of the Court was passed by
Rajeev Gup	ta, C.J. m
Learn	ed counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P.
No. 1681/20 appeal	04, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the

¶3

On deu consideraiotn of the submissions^{oflearnedcounsel} §orf the parties and the grounds taken in the application , we are satisfied that the^{appellanthassucceeded} in showing sufficient cause for the delay i^{ntilingtheappeal.} 3) M.C..P No.1081l2004,^therefor, e^{isallowedandthedela} y of 15 days in mgin the appeal is hereby^condoned. 4) Learned counsel^for t^{heappellantareheardo} n admission. ‘5 )‘ Appellant/ claimant Mano} Kumar Banjare is sekeing enhancement^{ofthecompensation} awarded by the^{FirstAdditional} t i Motor Accident C laims Tribunal, Raipur (for^short, “the Tribunal”) l ‘ ll vide award daedt^11.08.003, ‘ 2 passedV in Claim^{CaseNo.157/2002.} ‘l i 6) As against^{thecompenation} s^{ofR.18.00,000/-,} s^claimed‘by i the apllantpe^/claiant m^{byfilingaclaim} petition^undr e^Section166 of the Motor^{VehiclesActfortheinjuri} es sustained by^him ’ln the motor accident on 1 6.05.2002, the^{Tribunalawardedatotalsumof} Rs.,500/-9 as compensation^alongwith e^interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofctualga p^ayment. 7) Learn ed couseln for the appellant veh‘mentlye^arguedthat t the Tribualn^{haserredinawardinglowcompensationo} f Rs.9,500/only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injries including fractures in the motor accident. u ‘ w 8) For the reasonsbest known to the appeliantclaiman,/t no ‘ octor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of d i . . . . injuries said to have been suanstied by the appellant/claimant the

¶4

in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent^disabiiity.

¶5

The question whether the medicai certiffcate produced by the claimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of ARSRTC Vs P. Thirupai Raddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para^6asunder :

¶6

“6. iAfter hearing learned counsel for the respondent^- claimant'who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to reiy on the disability certiticate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv’s medicai certificate was reiected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at“ 15 oer cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr kit/i Mitra and awarded a iust^and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore thex'award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-ciaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not already been withdrawn.”

¶7

¶8

1G) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008)^7SCC305, reiterated the same view with the foiiowing observations in para 11 :

¶9

“1 1. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeiiant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the authnr of the certificate examined himself it was not admissible in evidence. Whetherthe disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. it is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. it even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as aiso the High Court, therefore.s~ proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. in absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” .-\

¶10

in View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra). the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal

¶11

without examining the Doctors who had issued those cenificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the E compensation in the case.

¶12

We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai.

¶13

The appeal fl|ed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation: therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is I

¶14

hereby dismissed summarily.

¶15

g Sdj‘ Chief Justice 1 l

¶16

nlmml

Manoj Kumar Banjare v. Sita Ram Sahu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Banjare v. Sita Ram Sahu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Budharu @ Anil Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sobha Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhaskar Prasad Joshi and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Punai Bai and Ors. Vs Amal @ Paritosh and Ors.

Chhunilal Soni and Others Vs Deepak Kumar Patel and Others

Smt. Girija Sharma and Others Vs Mohan Singh Thakur