Appeal against dismissal of a motor accident compensation claim by the Claims Tribunal. The wife failed to produce an injury report or examine a doctor; her late husband's disability certificate was unexamined. The High Court held the dismissal proper.
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
w/
<br>d” K 6%?
gg‘g‘k‘ wigw m w: maH gamer m wncA'mnE AT nusm (m) M.N9.A. Q? 20@¢ qgé v/s 173 as M.v.’nct ) ( moranamo£MisaAppeal
Paladta: n/o kmlakar Ealagtar ammun: ‘gnii‘smiu r/a viliage sattiparamhanmlmy', mbikapurusuictsurguja (m).
‘f eA‘sn xmar mptaave sswaic mmGupta w‘ a 52 years;bycaste.wishyam/a ' gags gaphra,9.a. 1391mmaistrict I. Jhpur (w)0 I ‘. Jai marmagat ,swvalit marmagatrsm ,. e& 39f yearsoecupation ariver.‘ , e ‘ g . llage hawakara P. s. @pkara.‘15trict K - Jashpur (as).v m“ ‘ a§?y3r%§§%iu§3ns%§u$m§%? g v/
w J;
HIGH couRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MA. No. 99s OF 2004
Appellant
Ku. Sumita Palaskar
Versus
Respondents
Ramesh Kumar Gupta & Others
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
(SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. AqarwaL J4
'ShriWasim Present : Miya, Advocate for appeHant. Shri Jai Prakash Shukla} Advocate for respondent No. 1 & 2. None for respendent No. 3 though served.
ORAL ORDER e
(Passedon5t“dayof February, 2010)
.Aocident Claims Tribunat (FTC), Ambikapur (for short ‘Trlbunal’) in claim case No. 16/02 whereby and whereunder the claim petition preferredbytheappellant has been dismissed.
2
19
The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Raddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC—189, observed in para 6 as under:
"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 Tribunal for nonexamination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physicaldisabilityat15 percentonthebasisofthedeposition 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 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."
The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the following observations in para 11:
“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. Qn~what basis, such a certincate 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 thaprovisions ‘of the Workmen's Compensation Act or othenm‘se is not known. it 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 Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High _ Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on
‘ gr r
cl ‘
@
record by the parties. In absence of any contentionhaving been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, thesame, in our opinion, cannotbe permittedto be raised for thefirsttime.” 9. A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. SarupaSahu&anothervideorderdated313‘March, its reliance uponthedictaofSupremeCourt in the 2009, piacing V cases referredaboveheidin para8asunder:
“8. In view of the above quoteddictaoftheApexCourtin the cases of A.P.SRTCv.P,ThimpalRaddy (supra)and Rajesh KumaraliasRaju V. YudhvirSinghandanother (supra),the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examinationoftheDoctorissuingthecertmcate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration assubstantiveevidenceforassessmentofthe compensationinthecase
‘
Sd/—
N. K. AganNaI
Judge
Sfhu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal committed any error in dismissing the compensation claim due to lack of cogent medical evidence proving the injury sustained.
Whether an unexamined disability certificate issued two years after the accident can be admitted as substantive evidence for assessment of compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal RaddyReferred¶26
(2005) 12 SCC 189 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir singh and anotherReferred¶28
(2008) 7 SCC 305 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Supita Palaskar
Ramesh Kumar Gupta
N.K. Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
