Dismissed

Dikshan Mahanand v. Mohan Lal and Others

Chhattisgarh HC9 Apr 2010MA/683/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous appeal for enhancement of compensation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that medical certificates were inadmissible as the issuing doctors were not examined. Consequently, the Tribunal's earlier award stood and could not be enhanced.

What did the court decide?

The appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by Rs. 2,000/- pleaded by the claimant, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was dismissed.

Dikshan Mahanand Vs Mohan Lal and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

K\°

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR.J

¶5

Misc Appeal No. 683 of 2003

¶6

Appellant Dikshan Mahanand, aged 55 years, S/o Ciaimant Shri Rathi Mahanand, R/o Aijun Hagar, Behind Dharmasala, Thana Golbazar, Raipur, Tahasil & District Raipur (CG)

¶7

Versys

¶8

Respondents 1. Mohanlal Chelak, aged 57 years, S/o Non-appellants Bahulal Chelak, R/o Purena Thana, Clvil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG)

¶9

1. Nagar Nigam, Ralpur, Through - Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Raipur, Ravi Bhavan, Jaisthamb Chowk, Raipur (CG)

¶10

Mtscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehiGteAct

¶11

Present : Shri Sanjay S Agrawal, and Utkarsh Joshi, counsel fortheappellant.

¶12

ORDER (9tn April, 2010)

¶13

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶14

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶15

Appellant Dikshan Mahanand is seeking enhancement of the compensation aMvarded by Uie Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 21.04.2003 passed in Claim Case No.44/2002.

¶16

As against the compensation of Rs.3,05,000/-, claimed by the appellanVclaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injunes sustalned by him in the motor

1ff

"•»,.. I'ST.aafi

accident on 12.01.2001, the Tribunal awareted a totel sum of Rs.2,00)/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment.

¶22

Shri Sanjay S Agrawal and Shri Utkarsh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding meager amount of Rs.2,000/only as compensation to the claimant, though the claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resutting in permanent disabllity.

¶23

-For the reasons best known to the appellant / claimant, no doctor was examined to establlsh the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident and the faiA that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability.

¶24

The question whether the medlcal certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal wlthout examinlng the Doctor who issued the certiflcate can be relied upon as substantlve evidence for the assessment of the compensatlon came up for conskteraUon before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported In (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under:

¶25

"6. After hearing learned counsel Tor the respondent - claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the H^h Court, we fmd that there was no justtfication for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar

¶26

Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiqh Court committed qross error "m overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhatar Reddv's medical certificate was rejasted by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the Dhvsical disabilltv at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deDOSition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancinq the compensation. Consequentty, we allow this appeal, set aslde 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."

¶27

The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Slngh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, retterated the same view vwth the following observations In para 11 :

¶28

"11. The certiflcate in question in this case was obtatned after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospftal treated the appeltant. On what basis, such a certlflcate was issued two yeare after the accident took place is not known. The author of the sakl certlficate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admisslbfe in evidence. Whether ttredisabtiny at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. ft is also not toiowi as

¶29

to whether he was competent to issue such a certlficate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. Ttre Tribunal as atso the Hlgh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties; In absence of any contention havlng been raised in regard to the appticability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, In our opinion, ex facie has no applicatiffli, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be rateed for thefirsttime."

¶30

In view of the above quoted cBcte 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 without examining the Doctors who had issued those certiflcates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case.

¶31

We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal.

¶32

The appeal, filed by the appellarrt/ctaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is llable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶33

No order as to costs. ~~~~— • ^' Sd/i? R.N. Chandrakar

¶34

i? Chief Justice

¶35

subbu

Dikshan Mahanand v. Mohan Lal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dikshan Mahanand v. Mohan Lal 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

Ku.Dharmin Bai Vs Vijay Lal Sahu and Others

Shriti Sarkar Vs Ashok Kumar Kurre and Others

Chintaram Dhimar and Another Vs Shahjad Khan and Others

M.D.Thakur Vs B.Appa Rao and Others

Keshav Yadav Vs Yogesh Kumar Yadav and Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insur Co. Vs Seemanchal Gond and Another