RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJU versus YUDHVIR SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 13-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 532 
RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJU 
V. 
YUDHVIR SINGH & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.3538 of 2008) 
MAY 13, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 163A, explanation - Refer-
enc.e of Workman Compensation Act, 1923 in explanation 
c · appended to s.163A(1)"""' Held: Is only for the purpose of said 
section, and is not meant to apply to cases falling under s. 156. 
· s. 166 - Disability - Claimant claiming compensation on 
the ground that he suffered 60% disability - Certificate of civil 
surgeon stating 60% disability, put on record - Courts below 
D assessed total disability at 30% - On appeal, held: The certifi-
)' ,, 
cate not admissible in evidence as the author of certificate 
was not examined - Moreover, it was issued after 2 years of 
accident and it was not proved whether author treated the claim-
ant orwas competent to issue such certificate. 
E 
The victim of motor accident, which took place in 
August, 2001, filed claim petition under s.166 of Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on the ground 
that' he suffered 60% total disability. The claimant-appel-
lant relied upon a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon 
F oii Nbvember, 2003 stating that he had suffered 60% dis-
ability.· Tribunal awarded compensation upon taking 30% 
of his 'income. On appeal, High Court assessed total dis-
ability at 30% and accordingly awarded compensation. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, claimant-appellant contended 
that having regard to the provisions contained in s.163A 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the purpose of awarding 
compensation on disability, the provisions of the 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 would be attracted; 
H 
532 
> ' 
: -t 
.... 
• 
RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJU v. YUDHVIR SINGH 
533 
&ANR 
and that in view of the fact that there was no dispute in A 
regard to the genuineness of the said disability certificate, 
the High Court committed a. serious error in assessing 
the total disability at 30% only. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The claim petition was filed· under s.166 
of the Motor Vehicles Act and not under s.163A thereof. 
S.163A provides for filing of a claim petition where an ac-
cident took place by reason of use of the motor vehicle. It 
B 
is not necessary to prove any fault on the part of the driver . c 
or the vehicle. The Tribunal in a proceeding arising un-
der s.166 of the Act is required to hold a full fledged trial. 
It is required to collect datas on the basis whereof, the 
amount of compensation can be determined.· Under 
s.163A of the Act, however, the question of liability and 0 
extent of proof thereof are not justiciable. The Tribunal 
can determine the amount on the basis of the basic datas 
provided therefor. [Para 7) [536-C,E,F] 
1.2. The reference to Workmen's Compensation Act 
by incorporation was only for the purpose of sub-section E 
(1) of s.163A. It was not meant to apply in a case falling 
under s.166 of the Act. Had the provisions of the 
Workmen's Compensation Act were applicable, the pro-
cedure laid down therein would also apply. For the pur-
pose of the definition of total disablement as also person 
F 
who can grant a certificate therefor, namely, a qualified 
medical practitioner, ss.2(e) and 2(i) would be attracted. 
In terms of the 1923 Act, the amount of compensation is 
required to be determined as specified in s.4. The Rules 
made in terms of s.32 of the Act known as Workmen's G 
Compensation Rules 1924, would also be applicable. 
[Para 8] [536-H, 537-A,B] 
2. The certificate in question was obtained after two 
years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of 
the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 8 S.C.R. 
A certificate 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. 
[Para 9] [537-C,D] 
B 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3538 
of 2008 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18/1/2007 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 886/2005 
C 
Gaurav Goel, Amit Sharma, Mahesh Agarwal and E.C. 
Agrawala for the Appellant. 
S.S. Yadav, S.L. Gupta and Goodwill lndeevar for the Re-
spondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
)t- ., 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is 
the appellant b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.