Dismissed

Shivcharan v. Smt.Pushpa Singh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC3 Feb 2010MA/333/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an accident claimant seeking to enhance compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court held that since the claimant failed to examine the doctor who issued the medical certificates for the injuries, said documents were inadmissible and could not form the basis for enhancement.

What did the court decide?

The appeal for enhancement of compensation is dismissed; no order as to costs passed.

Shivcharan Vs Smt.Pushpa Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

¶2

M. A. No. KEEN/2001.

¶3

APPELLANT CLAIMANT /^“

¶4

Shivcharan s/o Shobharam, CasteGond, aged about 18 years, Occ.— Agriculture, r/o village Chindiya P.S. Ramanujnagar, Tehsil~Suraj—pur, Distt. $urguja, C.G.

¶5

VERSUS.

¶6

RESPONDENTS Lw'a’nt. Pushpa Singh W/o NON-APPL ICANTS Tulesh‘war Singh, aged about 25 years, Occ.— Household, r/o Village Shim-our, P.S.w ” Ramanujnagar, Tehsil Surajpur, Distt. surguja, C.G. i (OWNER. )

¶7

United India Insurance Company Limite§, through Branch Manager, Branch Office Near Ram ‘ Mandir, At and post Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, C.G. (INSURER) Mustak Ahmed Khan @ Mumtaz, S/o Shamsher Khan, aged about 45 years, r/o village Baikun— thpur, Tehsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria, C.G.

¶8

(DRIVER.)

¶9

\J APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. APPEAL VALUED IN SUM OF Rs. 1,01,p00b L

¶10

V Being aggrieved with the aware dated 19.1 2.2000 passed in M.A.C.C. nee 32/9»; by the A&dl. Motor Acci— dents Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, Camp Surajpur, Distt. Surguja,‘ C.G., the ap'gellant named above begs to prerer this meme‘bif appeal on the following Eacts and grounds amongst others.

¶11

contd. .2

¶12

‘Jm

¶13

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MA. No. 333 OF 2001

Shivcharan

Versus

Smt. Pushpa Singh & Others

¶18

The instant appeal has been preferred^{bytheappellant,seeking} enhancement of compensation against the award dated 19.12.2000, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, Camp Surajpur, (for^{short‘Tribunal’)inclaim} case No. 32/97. The brief facts of the case^{accordingtotheappellantarethat,on} 24.06.1995, while the appellant was sitting in Truck bearing registration No. 27-8/0909, the said^{Truckcollidedwithtreedueto} which the appellant sustained^{simpleinjuries.} The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles^{Act,claimingcompensationto} the tune of Rs. 8,00,000lfor the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of^{theevidenceledbythe} parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of'the parties,^awarded total amount of Rs. 1200/- as compensation in favour of the appellant.‘

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant^{wouldsubmitthatalthoughthe} Doctor has not been examined in^{thismatter,butlookingtothefact} that the appellant sustained multiple^{injuries,andamountawarded}

¶20

/-,

¶21

' i is shocking on lawer side, this appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced.

¶22

i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appeiiant and perused^therecord.

¶23

The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC V. P. Thirupal Raddy, reported in (2&05) 12 866-189, observed in para 6 as under:

¶24

"6.After 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 justincation for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross

¶25

t.^- error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for nonexamination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical^{disabilityat15} per^cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High.Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.”

¶26

The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar atias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (20(18)⁷ SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the foltowing observations in para 11:

¶27

“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 appellant. 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 author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. lt is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. lt even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore. 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 “in Compensation Act which, our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time

¶28

¶29

A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & another vide order dated 315‘ March, 2009; placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above held in para 8 as under:

¶30

"8; ln View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Raddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case.”

¶31

Admittedly, the claimant in his own wisdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the accident and to prove the resultant loss. ln view of the dicta of the above referred cases, the injury reports, certificates produced, in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. Even documents regarding suffering multiple injuries were notfiled.

¶32

i2.

¶33

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No

¶34

order as to costs
‘
l 7
'
l

¶35

sm—
N. K. Agarwal
Judge

¶36

‘ Sahu

Shivcharan v. Smt.Pushpa Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivcharan v. Smt.Pushpa Singh 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

Ravi Kumr Vaishnav and Anr. Vs Sushilabai Yadav

Bisauha and Another Vs Gyan Chand and Others

Surendra Kumar Sahu Vs Milibai and Others

Kamta Prasad Sahu Vs Jabir @ Javed and Others

Tej Ram Vs Kamlesh Sen and Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. Vs Ganga Ram