\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Claimant about 36 years, r/o Nayakbandha, police station Abhanpur, dist. Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1. Krishna Bhalekar s/o Gajanand Bhalekar, aged about 42 years, ,r/o village Churiya, dist. Rajnandgaon Respondents Non-claimants C.G. 2. Harbansh Singh ‘slo lndar Singh Chawla, resident of Baldeobag, district Rajnandgaon C.G. >3. The Oriental insurance Company Limited, Branch Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, through Divisional Manager, Kutchery Chowk, Raiur, district Raipur C.G. Aggeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellant. Shri Prabhat Tiwari, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 None for respondent No.3 though served. Present : ORDER- (14‘l' October, 201 1 ) p The following order of the Court was passed by . Rajeev Gupta, C.J. I v l p . CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Aggellant i 2 M.A. No. 1041 0f2005 This’ is claimant’s appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9‘“ Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.04.2005, passed in Claim Case No.86/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.3,10,000/— claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.02.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.32,820/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led beforeit held that claimant lshwar Dehariya sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident on 13.02.2002; the accident beCurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.M.O.R.-9901; the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited; as the claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the‘claimant and the liability in that behalf was that of the owner and driver of the‘offending‘vehicle Truck. 4) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have spent on treatment, awarded \ \ i ~¥ Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, special diet and other ‘ , a \ . l 3 MA. No. 1041 of 2005 incidental expenses; and Rs.12,820/— towards medical expenses. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.32,820/— as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.32,820/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. I '5) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer of the Truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.32,820/— only. 6) Shri Prabhat Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents No.11 ‘ Krishna Bhalekar and No.2 Harbansh Singh, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Truck, also contended that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer of the Truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal leading to exoneration of the insurer of the Truck is concerned, it is apparent from the claimant’s case itself that he was travelling in a Truck which is a goods vehicle. 8), The law now is settled that the Insurance Com‘pany is not .Iiable to pay compensation for the injuries/ death of the person travelling in a goods vehicle unless such risk is expressly covered by the insurer by taking extra-premium from the owner of the vehicle.» As in the present case, no such risk is covered by the Insurance; f' . Company as is apparent from the insurance palicy, we do not nndl n \ , E i l 4 MA. No. 1041 of 2005 Mg any infirmity in the inding recorded by the Tribunal leading to exoneration of the insurer of the Truck. 9) So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we ‘gather from the Tribunai’s records that the claimant examined himself alone in support of his claim petition. For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal for establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant in the motor accident and the fact that se juries resulted in any permanent dability. tho in is .10) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the caimant before the Trbual without examing the Doctor who issued the rtificate can b reed upon s substantive evidence for ce e li a " the asssment th cpsation came up for consideratio se of e omen n before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. TC v. P. Thiral SR up Redd, reported in 2005) 2 SCC 18, wherein i was observed in y ( 1 9 t para 6 as uner: d “. Aer hearing leaned counsel for the responden- climant who ade an attpt to support the oer of the Hh Cour, e fin that there was no justification for the Hih Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sdakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treati ‘ iu ma ab p ce The High Court committedgross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddys medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for nonexamination of that doctor. The Jribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing . Consequely, allow thisappeal, st aside the imugned order ad \ 6 ft r t a m em rd ig t w d g uh ng the njry as pernent disility to be 45 er nt. ’ - . V Tv DN c_.gw. ,w l in ni W- \ the same and enhancing the compensation. :nt we e p n .\\ 5 M.A. No. 1041 of 2005 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.” 11) 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. Thecertificate 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 cf 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. lt 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 ra'ised for the first time.” 12) The medical certificate and the disability certificate produced .3 by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors ‘_ whqhad issued those certifrcateshin view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy m t 6 M.A. No. 1041 of 2005 (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and Ianother (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. . 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded‘by the Tribunai. 14) The appeal filed by the appeilant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. '15) No order as to costs. / / (*h \. sau- ‘ 3‘” ‘1 2' \ N.K.Aga““a Chief Justice E kg V ‘ Judge i V Si ‘\ , , x 77 77/ . . . ”'mm' , , , I L [ J” , ,, Hy x, k r _} 1 L Nir/d.