The court dismissed an appeal seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. It held that medical certificates and injury reports prepared without examining the issuing doctor are inadmissible as substantive evidence for assessment under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The appeal was dismissed; no enhancement of compensation was granted.
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.
fi.a:;
^i V"!
i»:@nffi(i»ii@ j^g@(]EMaBM^
:'::;aB%%'®ils§»i?"®^'
M.A.tC'.l.Nb'. w&
^SPSE^MWT
ygIjAIMANT ^' !:'. '::/' ' ;.1 c .^•.•/^li^i ^•'""'^. ^^^.i^s" .•:"":
'Najja@;N^itia.' Begum, ^aged aBctea.t^ 35ygarS,W/oSHnRBshanJS^ Residenc®;^^Ranlriagaj-•' SKifla^ .P61iGe'.'Sta^QiS':&'^PQM'.©u
.I^p^District'Raipur^e.G.J .' ';r''^
•VERgys :..0.":'.:^: ;:,v: '^ ^ -...:..:':..? '•.:-: ^.:'.
B^l^'iJJK^I^.'^ BSilii's ^l'l.!^^
s®w; IIBi!
RESPONiElEItFS?;
^fD-^^es^
%
;Rar^^(^;Rajal{;aged al3&ufe:^5: ^'^^^•^^^y ^ears:,S/6,^KriPHraM^Ram.Rajak'^ R^idence ^ Ai% ?,'I'al^iI':::^:0^'.tf?::PQU<::e^:':':'Y§fae0n:.^ ^r^Bhan^lM-atappur,^:J@isttt',KaM^ (C^G.^(DR!^^ofaUeged;veffiele .•.:C.G.;,04-Grp.41;3).f. •^;;:;-:::::,;'.^',.~:.. JoUrHal [ .Soni, aged about 35 ^ years, S/^o Shn ]%slTtram Si^ 'R^ci c^:^oT''VilIa.ge^Saffil3^^ ;:fTahML ;l.':;^:.&^'.;:i^oIiGe-'^^:-.''Stati^}^ BIiani.tpi-atappur, DiSW Kanlter - (G.G.) (GWNE^ 6f alleged' vehicle ::(£,a::Q4-G/2^l3)'.'::.':^^.^;::':::
,The.©pental.Insuranee^c pai^' .'I4nnfed'i \ .:• .thr6ugh;';. •©ivisional.^ • ManageK,'^Di^stohaI •©fE^KR&^ iCaiowk,^^^^^^ J ;Kachafia» Raipiu-, Tahsil & E)isti^t^^^ ^(G.U,)^':.^.:^::^:.'/::,1.^:.''^ ^(%l^[a8E;R^.alleged^v6fei(3i!:^a|g :l,Q|^<S^13^^r'.:,.';,.'l,l^,i;-;K:
^s
fSSSSSS S8ts®SIS8i •
Bl
l'<'
MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION ^fc F73 OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT 1988.
"\ T.
'TiCS^: 0
•^ t^,
do.2S6 OF
'ELLANT/
Najja @ Najma Begum
.'ersus
•ONC
Ramtaran Rajak ai 'rs
IF THE Fvli .f^T i^e- 1 ,
iench: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaanva! Al
;hri A.L. Slnaroul, counsei forthe appellant.
'r^.a^'s.rs.
-?tfl 'y 2011)
'he instant appeal has been preferred by the appeiiant seeking enhancement of compensation against the award a'ated 07-07-2010 passed by X Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Cialm Case No.43/2009 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 5,300,''- 'nas been awarded as compensation in favour ofthe appellant and against respondents No.1 & 2, exoneratjns respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company from its liabiiity to pay compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case according to appeilant a.re that, on 21-10-2008, the appellant aiong with other persons was goin^ from Bhsnupratappur to Antagarh as iabourer (coolie) by Matador bearlng registration No. C.G. 04 G 2413. Due to rash ?;;-d neg!Egent driving by the driver, the said vehicle turned tuilie as a result ofwhich the appeilant sustained grievous injuries.
.^•.ss^^Ss^,.. '..•sa»i»"".S«. ^°tii.'•%. &..rfiSh,ii's3gy3! j ^B^:J? ^aaS^
^!
The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh alias Raju v. Yudhvir Slngh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 3S5, reiterated the same view with the fo!iowin( observations in para 11:
«^^ i i . 'he certiflcate in question in this case 'A'as obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Clvi! Surgeon of t'ne hospita! treated the appei.lant. On what basis, such a certificats 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 himseif, it was not admissibie in evidence. Whether the disabitity at 60% was caiculated on the basis of the provisions of the V/orkmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. it is a!so not- known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raisect before us had either been raised before the Tribuna! or the High Court. Thc Tribunsl as also ths Hiyh Court, ihcrefors, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the !n absence of any contention having been parties. raised in ragard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, In our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time."
A Diwsion Bench of this High Court in cass of Pradeep
i'
^
Kumar Sahu vs. Sarypa Sahu & another vide order dated 31st Maroh, 2009, piacing its reliance upon the dicta of Suprems Court in the cases referred above heid in para 8 as undei
"8. In view of the above guoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlmpal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kiimar attas Rajii v. Yudhvir and anoth&- (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examlnation 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."
and to prove the resultant ioss. In 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 norcan be taken Into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case.
^
-( ^ i i . Learned counsel for the appellant coutd not point out any illegality In the finding of contributory negtigence recorded by the Tribunai. Moreover, it is tTite iaw, in the absence of specific agresment, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for personsittinginthe goodsvehicleas gratuitous passenger. The appeliant also faiied to provs injuries sustained by her by adducing legai'evidence, and in such circumstance, 1 do not find scope for enhancement of compensatlon awarded tha luufia,.
For the reasons mentioned herein above,the a|
:by dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/N.K. Agarwal Judge -»c
Kv;
3 issues framed by the court
Whether compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be enhanced based on medical certificates issued without examining the doctor.
Whether the High Court correctly enhanced compensation by treating injuries as permanent disability without proper medical evidence.
Whether an insurance company is liable to compensate a gratuitous passenger sitting in the goods deck of a vehicle.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Najma Begum
Ramtaran Rajak
Union of India & ors.
National Insurance Company Ltd.
N.K. Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
