S^^K.^^, .n <-('- IN THE HON»BLEHIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.A. (C) No 1^\ /2010 ^ ^•^1 ^ ^ APPELLANT/ ^Applicant) ^^ ^I^>B >^'»' ^ .-v? L^.^'' ^^ RESPONDENT/ lon-Applicantl Jasleen Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh, aged about 20 years, R/o Near Gurudwara, Charoda, Police Station- Purani Bhilai, Tahsil and Distt.- Durg (C.G.). VERSUS /Pramod Yadav S/o Shri Laxminarayan Yadav aged about 28 years, R/o Jone-1, Quarter no. 81B, Road No.6, B.M.Y. Charoda, Police Station- Purani Bhilai, Tahsil and Distt.- Durg (C.G.). (Driver and Owner of Motor Cycleno. C.G.07/L.F./7001) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ^ Y \^ : -^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fQNo. 158 of 2010 ADpellant/ ApDlicant Respondent/ Non-aDDlJcant JasleenSingh Versus PramodYadav APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri SP Sahu.Advocate forappellant. ORALORDER (Passed on 15thday of February, 2010) Heard onadmissjon. The instant appeal has been preferred by theappellant, seeking enhancement of compensation agajnst ;the award dated 17.11.2009, passedby the 12th Additional MdorAccident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg (forshort 'Tribunal') in clajm case Nb. 101/09. The brjef facts of the case accordjng to the appellant are that, on 09.04.2008, the appellant met with an acddent with Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07/LF/7001 dueto which the appeilant sustained injuries. The appellant preferred an application beforeithe Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs»2,90,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on acpount ofthe said accident. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the partjes, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, awarded tptal amouht of Rs. 46,883/- as compensation in favouroftheappellant. Learned counsel for the appellant woyld submit that although the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but lookjng to the fact that the appellanf sustained multiple injuries, and amount awarded <r 8. p is shockingly on lower side, this appeal may be ailowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the award impugned. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTCv.P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "SAfter hearing learned counsei for the respondent-dajmant 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 Redd/s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- examinationof that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and faircompensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Conseqyently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award ofthe Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already beenwithdrawn." The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in 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 inpara 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 oplnion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." H 9. A Divisjon Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & anof/iervide order dated 31 March, 2009, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above held in para 8 as under: "8. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupaf Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar afias Raju v. Yucfhvir Singh and another (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case." 10. Admittedly, the claimant in his own wisdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the accident and to prove the resultant loss. In view of the dicta of the above referred cases, the injury reports, certificates produced, in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence forenhancement of compensation in the case. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ! i 1 Sd/- N.K. Agarwal ^ Judge •^-'--•"-.•-."•'. . .,,_ Sahu