1 HIGHeOURTOF CHHATTIS6AIW AT BILASPUR MA. N0.1070 OF 2005 APPELLANT CUUMANT RESPONDENTS/ NQN.APPL1CANT Mukesh @ Asharam Sahu, aged 20 year, S/o Late Bholashantau' Sahu, Ramsagar Para, Raipur (C.G.) Versus I. Guru Charan Stngh S/o Pratap Singh, Kota Bs^i, P.S, Amanaka, Raipur(C.G.) 2. M.P. Rajya Sarak ParivahanNigam, C/o Divfsional Manager, Divisional Office,Amanaka, Ralpur(C.G.) APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR ¥EMtGl.E ACT71988. — (Sinale Bench: Hon'bleMr. W.K.Aaarwaf. J.l Present Shri S.C. Verma, cainsel for the appellant. None forrespondents No.1 & 2. ORALORDER (Passed on 30th day ofApril, 2810) The instant appeal has been preferreel bytheappellant for seekingenhancement ofcompensation against the award dated 11-03-2005 passed by Ninth Addl. Motor Acctelent Glaims Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Raipur (for shiwt the Tribunal') in claim case No. 36/20)2 whereby and whereundei- an amount of Rs. 1,25,800/- along with interest @ 6% percent per annum has in awarded as compensation in favour ofthe appeltant. 2 The brief facts of the case according to appellant are that, on 13-07-1999, the appellantwhile returning from Kanker by his vehicle Heropuch bearing registration No. M.P. 25 F/7355 with his friend, met with an accklent due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle (Bus) bearing registration No. M.P. 07/F 0157 and pursuant to said accident sustained grievous injuries. e 3. The appellant preferred an appllCiEdion before the TrUMiral under Section 1QB of the Motor Vehtetes Act, clalming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,0007- for the iniuries sustalned by him onaccount ofthe said accident. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutlny pf theevklenee ted, material ptaced and submissions male, snMard«ltrtal afnountiof Rs.1,25.800/- as compensatlon in favouroftheswettentaloBg with interest @ 6% per annum from 1h®date of oreler tiB its paymenit. 5. Leamed eounsel for the apprtant wauld submit that atthough the Doetor has not been examined in this matter, but iTOWng to the fact that the appellant susteined grievous injury, and amount awarded by the Tribunal is shocldngty on lower stde, this appeat may be atlowed and the compensatton be suitably enhanced. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 7. The Supreme Court tn case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thhvpal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCG-189, observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing teamed counsel forthe respondent- claimant who made an atteropt to support the order of fce High Court. We find that there was no justittea&on for the High Courtto rety on the disability certificate issyed by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court commHtel gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medteal certfficate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- examinaUon of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disabillty at 15 per cent on ttis basisofthe deposiUon of Dr. K.M. Mttra and awatded a just and fair compensation. fhe High Court erred indisturbing the same and enhancing the compensalion. Consequently, we allow ttiis appeal, set askte the impugned ordBrand restore the avrard of the Clalms Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is altowed to withdraw ttie ainount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has nrt already been withdrawn." 8. The Supreme Gourt in a recent diGtum (n cs e of Rajesh Kumar aHas Raju v. YudhvirSingh and another, reported !n (2008) 7 SCC 305, retterated the same view wlth the followmg observations tnpara11 : "11. The ceitifteate in questioo in ttiis case v sobtained after two yeare. It is not known as to whather th$ G.vil Surgeon of the hospilal treatod the appeHant. Qnwhst basis, such a ceriaficate was issued two years aaer the accidenttook place is notlaKnwi. Theauthor of thesajd certificate had not been examined. Unless the authoir of the certificate eiamtned himseff, it was not achnissU^ m evidence. Whether Uie disability at 60% was calculatiKl on the basis of ttre provisions of the Wortanen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is ateo rert knownas to whether he was competent to issue such a certiflcate. tt even does not a ®arthat the contenUons raised before us had either been raised brfore ttie Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also Uw High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contenUon having been raised in regard to the applicability of ttie Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opjnion, ex facie has no appBcaUon, thesame, in our opinion, cartnot be permitted to be raised for the firet time." 9. A Divislon Bench of this 1-ligh Court in case of flradieep Kumar Sahuvs. Saraipa Saftu &aiwffiw vide oreler dated 318t March, 2009, plaeing its reliance upon the dieta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above held in para 8 asunder: "8. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases cf A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlnipal Redfty (supra) and Rajesh Kumar allas Raju v. Ywihwlr Shigh an<t another (supra), the certificate produced beforp the Tribunal in the absence of examinaUon of th®6octor issuir^ the certificate is neither admissible in evidsnce nor can be taken into consideration as substanfive evidence for assessment ofthecompensaUon inftc case." 10. AdmUtedly, the claimant 1n Ns own wfsclom did »ol examine Doctor to prove the injury susteteed te the aeeideii^to prove the resuttant loss. In view of the dfeta ?of the abeve referred cases, th& hijury reports, certlfiertes produced; in the absenee of examination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, reiSficates are netther admi^lbte in evldence nor can be taken 4 ^^ into consideration as substantive evidenee for enhancementof compensation in the case. 11. In a motor accident claim case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehteles Act, 1988, what fe important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal alioutd be just and proper compensation <n the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neithera bounty nor charity. 12. For the reasons mentioned herelnabove, 1 do not find any scope for enhaneement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13 The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancemerrt of the compensation Is therefbre liable to be and is t^'eBy dismissed; Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge