SingleJudge bench dismissed an appeal seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. The court held that medical certificates remained inadmissible for enhancing compensation due to non-examination of the issuing doctor, citing Supreme Court precedents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
4)
\ 94’
.1 F
C
EN THE HIQ—I COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH ($92, M. A. No. /2001
S C. APPEAL
UNDER SECTION 73 OF MDCEUR VEHICLE ACT 9 8
HIGH COI§RT OF CHHAWI$GARH AT BILA$PUR MISC. PPEAL N0. 392 OF 2W?!
APPELLANT
Dhruv Kumar
U)
{cgaimant}
Versus
REsPONDENTS NONAPPLICANTS
Kapil Sareen and others.
APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 1?3 GF THE MOTfDR VEHICLE ACT, 1988.
($inqieBench: Hon‘bie Mr. N‘K. Aqarwai, J.) Present : ShriA.L.Singroui,counseiforthe appeiiant.
ORAL ORDER m any!“ 49th Am n: am" 054m ‘ra§a¥u Ut t‘ Hay UI HUI}, & I i
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appeiiant for seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 02-03-2001 passed by Second Addl. Motor Accident Claims ‘the Tribune! and Second Addl. Distt. Judge, Raipur (forshort Tribunal’) in claim case No. 15/2000 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 5000/- along with interest @ 10% percent per annum has been awarded as compensation in favour of the appellant.
“6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondentclaimant who made an attemptto supporttheorderofthe High Court. We find that there was no justificationforthe High Court to rely on the disabilitycertificateissuedbyDr. Sudhakar Roddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medicai certificate was rejected by the Tribune! for nonexamination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basisofthe deposition of Dr. KM. Mitre and awarded a just andfair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentty. we aiiow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent-cialmantis allowed to withdrawtheamountof compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not already been withdrawn.”
“11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civi!
e
Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certmcate was issued twc years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himseif, evidence. Whether the disabilityitatwas60%notwasadmissibiecaicuiatedin on the basis of the ’Workmen’s provisions of the Compensation Act or othenrvise is not known. it is aiso not certificate.known as toIt whethereven doeshe wasnot appearcompetentthat totheissuecontentionssuch a raised before us had either been raised before the T'ribunai or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. ln 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."
- A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep 5‘ Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & another vide order dated 31 March, 200g, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above held in para 8 as under: “8. ln View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Roddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju V. Yuo’hvir Singir and another (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunai 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.”
e
The appeat fited by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ,_‘—n——,’
"- N.K.Agarwai 7 l l \
2 issues framed by the court
Whether compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be enhanced when the claimant failed to examine the doctor who issued the injury certificate.
Whether medical certificates issued without the examination of the certifying doctor are admissible as substantive evidence for assessing compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal RaddyApplied¶23
(2005) 12 SCC 189 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and anotherApplied¶25
(2008) 7 SCC 305 · Who else cites this
Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & anotherReferred¶29
Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & another
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dhruv Kumar
Kapil Sareen
Girish Kumar
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
N.K. Agarwai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
