Ashok Bhatia Vs Mangesh Kumar Salame

1 - Mangesh Kumar Salame, S/o. Thanuram Salame, Aged About 31 Years, Caste Gond, R/o. Village Ghortalav, Thana Bagnadi, Tehsil Dongargadh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Car Tata Sumo CG 04 HB 1544)

¶14

2 - Bhupendra Sursanwat, R/o. Village Ghortalav, Thana Bagnadi, Tehsil Dongargadh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Car Tata Sumo CG 04 HB 1544).

¶15

2

¶16

3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Khamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Car Tata Sumo CG 04 HB 1544)

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

For Appellants : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate

¶19

(Single Bench)

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶21

Judgment on Board

¶22

08/04/2026

¶23

The legal representatives of the original claimant Anjana Bhatiya has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 23.10.2018 passed by Additional Claims Tribunal Dongargarh of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No.17/2017, by which the claim application for grant of compensation filed by the original claimant has been dismissed finding no merit.

¶24

Mr. Kamlesh Patel, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that though most of the findings have been recorded in favour of the appellants but merely the Doctor has not been examined, the compensation even for the permanent disability has not been

¶25

3

¶26

awarded, therefore, the appeal be allowed. He would reply upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Raj

¶27

1 . Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another

¶28

Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the insurance company/respondent No.3, would support the impugned award and submit that the appeal of the claimants/appellants is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶30

The Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra) in para 18 held as under :

¶31

“ 18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give “ready to use” disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily give liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make

¶32

1 (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶33

4

¶34

it a point to require the evidence of the doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or discharge certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of the claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local hospitals/medical colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability.”

¶35

In this case, though the disability certificate has been filed vide Ex.P-15, but the Doctors/Members of the Medical Board, who have given the medical certificate, has not been examined. As such, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra), the Tribunal ought to have constitute a Medical Board to prove the medical certificate, which has not been done by the Tribunal and the claim application has been dismissed. Accordingly, the finding to the extent of non-entitlement of compensation made in impugned award dated 23.10.2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal to examine the Doctors/Members of the Medical Board to prove the disability certificate Ex.P-15 and claimants would also be entitled to produce further evidence before

¶36

5

¶37

the Claims Tribunal. Thereafter, the award may be passed by the Claims Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Record be sent forthwith to the Claims Tribunal.

¶38

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated herein above.

¶39

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶40

Ashok

Ashok Bhatia v. Mangesh Kumar Salame

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Bhatia v. Mangesh Kumar Salame

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Agariya Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav

Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mahendra Kumar Sahu

Dashru Ram Markam Vs Puranik Lal Deshmukh

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kamal Kumar Nayak

Ramanuj Vs Gyaniklal

Laxan Bai Vs Ramadhar Yadav