IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 818 of 2007
Rajesh Kumar Kaushik
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Tej Narayan Singh
2. Manager M/s. Niroj Ispat Pvt Ltd
3. The New India Insurance Company
...Respondents
! Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the appellant
^ None appears for the respondents
HONBLE SHRI JAGDISH BHALLA Ag C J and HONBLE SHRI DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH J
Dated: 20/07/2007
: Order
Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation
amount
ORAL ORDER
(Passed on 20th July, 2007)
The following oral order of the Court was passed
by
Hon'ble Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.
Heard.
2. The only point urged by learned counsel for the
appellant, a motor-cycle mechanic, in this appeal for
enhancement of compensation is that in a case where the
claimant is alleged to have suffered 30% permanent
disability due to fracture near the calf muscle in the
right leg, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by
the learned Tribunal is too low since the Tribunal did
not take into consideration the extent of permanent
disability suffered by the claimant.
3. It is not in dispute that the claimant did not
examine the doctor issuing the permanent disability
certificate. Learned counsel for the appellant could
not substantiate whether the certificate filed before
the M.A.C.T. was of the Medical Board. The claimant
had admitted before the M.A.C.T. that he did not
possess a driving licence and had sustained the
fracture while he was riding a motor-cycle due to
collision with an oncoming car. No documentary
evidence was led by the claimant to show his income.
4. Time and again, this Court has reiterated that in
order to prove permanent disability the claimant is
under an obligation to examine the doctor issuing the
certificate of permanent disability. In Sudhir Bhuiya
Vs. National insurance Company Ltd., & another 2005 ACJ
509, it was observed as under:
“If the appellant really wants support
from the opinion of any doctor or board of
doctors, the Insurance company and the owner
of the vehicle, against whom the said opinion
will be used, should be given an opportunity
to cross-examine those persons for the
purpose of ascertaining the truth of their
opinion contained in the certificate; it is
preposterous to suggest that by mere
producing a certificate showing that a person
had become disabled, he can force the
Insurance Company or the owner of the vehicle
to pay compensation though the genuineness of
the document is not proved and they are not
in a position to cross-examine the person who
has allegedly given such opinion.”
5. We are in complete agreement with the above
observation and would further like to add that a duty
is cast on the M.A.C.T. to ensure that process is
issued to the doctor concerned issuing certificate of
permanent disability and his attendance secured in the
Court. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the M.A.C.T. is
under an obligation to award just and reasonable
compensation and can not shirk its responsibility by
taking shelter of the fact that the claimant had failed
to examine the doctor issuing the certificate of
permanent disability. In most of the cases in
Chhattisgarh, the claimants are illiterate and poor
villagers and sometimes illiterate widows, minor
children etc. The Presiding Judge of the M.A.C.T. in
such cases should take pains to see that process is
issued to the doctor concerned, his attendance secured
in the Court and the insurer is given opportunity to
cross-examine the doctor. The Presiding Judge of the
M.A.C.T. being under an obligation to award just and
reasonable compensation should not remain a silent
spectator during the proceedings.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned
in paragraph 3 (supra), since in our considered opinion
the compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T. is
commensurate with the injury suffered and the learned
counsel for the appellant has also not been able to
submit whether the appellant had filed any certificate
of the Medical Board in support of the disability
suffered by him, we find no reason to interfere with
the impugned award in this appeal. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
7. A copy of this order be sent to all the Presiding
Judges of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in
Chhattisgarh for their guidance and strict compliance.
Ag Chief Justice