HON'BLE S. B. IN TME HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT/ CLAIMANT: VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ^•^ 1. 2. ^.^ ^•-l ....--* ^^ .o^a'"^ ^•J\ 3. M. A. fC) No. //5~9 /2011 Smt Rajkumari Sonwani, W/o T.D. Sonwani, Aged about 46 years, R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Bahadurgudapara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (C.G.) , Roopdhar Mourya, S/o Shri Chandradhar Mourya, Aged about 25 years, R/o Takraguda, District Bastar, C.G. (Driver) Rajesh Kumar Dubey, S/o Shri Durga Prasad Dubey, R/o Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Presently Residing at Office of Bharat Traveis, Infront of Shankar Mandir, Pratapganj para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (C.G.) ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTCR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ^ h^ APPELLANT CLAIMANT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 1154 of 201 1 Smt. Rajkumari Sonwani Versus RESPONDENTS Roopdhar Mouiya and others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT:- Shri AlokDewangan, counsel for the appellant. ORAL AWARD (24.11.2011) Heard on admission. 2. This is, claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the 1st ' Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, place Bastar, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 31/2010 vide award dated 24.8.2011. 3. As against compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- claimed by the appellant by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 12.01.2009, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 12,493/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No.C.G.17-ZA/0162 by its driver - Roopdhar Mourya, respondent No.l; appellant sustained injuries in the said accident; respondent No.3./the Oriental Insurance Limited liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of policy conditions: assessed Rs.6000/- for w ^ pain and suffering and Rs.6493/- towards medical expenses incurred on treatment and thus has awarded Rs.12,493/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 5. Shri Alok Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the Doctor has not been examined in t:his matter, but looking to the fact that fhe appellant sustained multiple injuries, and amount awarded is shockingly on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record of the Tribunal including the award impugned. 7. True, the appellant sustained injuries in the motor accident on 12.01.2009 but for the reasons best known to the appellant / claimant no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the number and nature of 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. 8. 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 : f-w^ ^.»f^ "6. 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 Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust 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." 9. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case 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 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. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same/in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.?? 10. Admittedly, the claimant in his own wisdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injuries sustained in the accident and to prove the resultant loss. In view of the dicta of the above referred cases, '^ ^ the injury report produced in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the injury report are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. Further, in the instant case, the injuries sustained by the claimant are simple in nature, as is evident from the award. 11. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the appellant, in the light of the fact that no doctor was examined by the appellant to prove the number and nature of injuries and the resultant loss and the injuries are simple in nature, in my opinion, there is no scope for enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge