Dismissed

Subhash Sharma v. Jalandhar Tandi and Others

Chhattisgarh HC4 Feb 2010MA/334/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this summary judgment regarding a motor accident compensation claim, the High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal seeking enhancement of the Tribunal's award. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that medical certificates produced without the examination of the issuing doctors are inadmissible as substantive evidence, precluding any enhancement of compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Subhash Sharma Vs Jalandhar Tandi and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

^i^

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G) f^?C? 1 ii/;^nn-t ^£fisS<F!5^%.^i J£l asK MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL N0;6 2002,

¶4

APPEI-LANT
^IMANT

¶5

1] Subhash Sharma,Aged about 47yrs, S/o. C.M. Sharma,

¶6

R/o. Udhyog Nagari,Bhanpuri

¶7

P.0. Birgaon, District: Raipur (C.G)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

.^'

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ XON-APPUCANT

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ Jalandhar Tandi, S/o. Navaji Tandi, XON-APPUCANT R/o. Trimurty Nagar,Near Shiv Mandir, ^•-' Rcflpur, Dist:Raipur (C.G) Prakash Kumar ,S/o S.P. Vidhyarthi, .^^ R/o M.I.G.-5, Kabir Nagar, Ring Road No.2 -^^•/ Hirapur, P.0. Hirapur, Dist:Raipur(C.G) '•'''' <M^'"\ ^•1-"^ The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, ^vy y Divisional Office,Jail Road, Raipur(C.G)

¶12

¶13

Miscellaneous Appeal under/section 173 Motor Vehicle Act1988

¶14

Beina aaarieved bv the Judaement and award oassed bv3 Additkanal Motor Accident Claims Tubunal. and DistEieriudae.Raipur, in claim case no. <<^?1/2002. dated^'50.12.2002, in the case of Subhash

¶15

SharmaSt Another Versus Jalandhar & others.

¶16

¶17

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MA.No. 334 OF 2003

Subhash Sharma

Claimant

Versus

Respondents/ Non-applicants

¶23

Jalandhar Tandi & Others

¶24

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

¶25

(SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.)

¶26

Present : Shri Aditya Khare, Advocate for appellant. Shri Hanuman Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(Passed on 4'" day of February, 2010)

¶29

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 20.12.2002, passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'Tribunal') in claim case No. 91/02. The brief facts of the case according to the appellant are that, on 14.06.2001, while the appellant was traveling in TATA Sumo bearing registrationNo. B.R.-16/J/0032, the said Sumo turned turtle due to which the appellant sustained injuries.

¶30

The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensatlon to the tune of Rs. 9,80,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident.

¶31

The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny ofthe evidenee led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, awarded total amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellant.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but looking to the fact that the appellant sustained grie-'/ous injury, and amount awarded

¶33

% 7<?' '^M'SSh.;••.... .J...^ l-:..K;a.,i^ j1 9 / )„,"•:118':3,];ii^s<ly./

¶34

($)

¶35

is shocking on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the

¶36

amount of compensation be enhanced.

¶37

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

¶39

perused^therecord.

¶40

¶41

The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupal Reddy,

¶42

reported in (2005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under:

¶43

"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 justification 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 error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunai for nonexamination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 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 ailow this appeal, 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."

¶44

¶45

The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11:

¶46

"11 .The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. tt 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 eyidence. - Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. tt is also 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 Tribunat^ 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 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."

¶47

¶48

¶49

A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & another vide order dated 31 st March, 2009,placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above held in para 8 as under:

¶50

"8. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Rafu 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."

Admittediy, the claimant in his own wisdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the accident and to prove the resultant loss. In view of the dicta of the above referred cases, the injury reports, certiflcates 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.

¶55

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe 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. Nb order as to costs.

¶56

Sd/N.K. Agawal Judge

¶57

Sahu

Subhash Sharma v. Jalandhar Tandi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Sharma v. Jalandhar Tandi 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

Kamta Prasad Sahu Vs Jabir @ Javed and Others

Tej Ram Vs Kamlesh Sen and Ors.

Shivcharan Vs Smt.Pushpa Singh and Others

Smt.Usha Devi Vs Anad Ram and Others

Kartik Ram Vs Smt.Sunderbai

Keshaw Ram Dewangan Vs Smt.Rukhsana Bano and Others