VIPIN BIHARI DAS Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Vipin Bihari Das is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 14th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.08.2007, passed in Claim Case No.14/2007. As against the compensation of Rs.3,65,000/ - claimed by appellant/ claimant Vipin Bihari Das, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21.09.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.61,812/ - as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

(2.) SHRI Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 61,812/ - only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injures including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. Shri Sudhir Agrawal & Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel respondent No.3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the appellant could not establish that the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability, the compensation of Rs.61,812/ - awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two witnesses including himself (AW -1 Vipin Bihari Das and AW -2 Atmanand Sahu) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in, (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under:

(3.) 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 non -examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition 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 Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yadhvir Singh and another, reported in : (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observation in para 11: