i-HGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL£$PUR MISC. APPEALNG. 1139 OF 2G03 Ashok Choudhary, S/o suKhdev Choudhary, Agad abaui 35 years, Rm Vinage Bhothidihg P.S, Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) APPELLANT Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Deep‘ak Agrawas, S/o Chandrabhan Agrawaz, Ageé abcuf 37 years, R/o Station Chowk; Raigarh; Uistt. Raigarh (3.6.) 2. H.L. Singh: $/c P. Sing'n? Hamcuiture, Raégarh (3.8.) The New india Insurance Com. Ltd” Branch Office, Sattigudi Chowk, Raigam, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) A?PEAL UNDER SECTmN 1?3_Qf THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988. §$ing§e sench: Hon‘bm Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) ‘_ Presem : Shri Vivek Rathore. counsel aiong with Ms. Marisha Chatri, counse: for the appeiEant. . ’ $hr§ KK. Dewangan, counse9 for respondenEs NM & 2. None for respondent No.3. own. oRoEa (Paoged ca 2g“ day of March, 2&10) The instant appea! has been preferred by fhe appei!ant for seekmg enhancement of compensation against the award daied §5~O§-2GO3 passed by Second Addie Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for shon ‘the Tribune?) in ciaim case No. 45/2GO2 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 23,7GOI- aiong with interest @ 9% percent per annum from the date of applrcation rm its recovery, has been awarded as compensation in favour of the appettan’t. 2. The brief facts of the case according to appeilant are that, on 22-07—2002 the appeltant atong with one Keehav Patei, whiie coming fs'om petrol pump, after fining the petroi in his motorcycie bearing registration No. CG. 06/4434 met with an accident by offending vehicie Maruti Car bearing registration No. C.G. “@4200 due to rash and negiigent driving of the car driver and pursuant to said accident, sustained grievous. injuries. 3. The appeiiant preferred an applicaton before the Tribunai under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ciaiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000!— for the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident. 4. The Tribunai, on a close scrutiny of the evidence ted, material piaced and submissions made, awarded total amount of Rs. 23,700l- as compensation aiong with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of appiication till its recovery, in favour of the appeliant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that aithough the Doctor has not been examined in this matter. but iooking to the fact that the appellant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on lower side, this appeai may be aiiowed and the compensation be enhanced. 6. l have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. 7. The Supreme Court in case of AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Raddy, reported in (2095) 12 SOC-189, observed in para 6 as unden "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 Reddy’s medicai - certificate was retested by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physicai disability at 1S per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a just and fair a i compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, we aliow thie appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the C!aims Tribunal. The respendent~claimant is aiiowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not already been withdrawn." 8. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2%8) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the foliowing observations in para 11 : “11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. ltv is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appellant. 0n what basis. such a certincate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himseif. it was not admissibie 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 aiso 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. ln absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appiicabiiity 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.” 9. A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & another vide order dated 315* 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 AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupa! Raddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribune! in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admissibie in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case.” 10. Admittediy, the ciaimant in his own wisdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the accident and to prove the resultant ioss. in view of the dicta of the above s (M referred cases, the injury reports, certificates produced, in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are neither admissibie in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. 11. in a motor accident claim case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of each case. it is neither a bounty nor charity. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, i do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The appeai filed by the appeiiant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore iiabie to be and is hereby dismissed. i 7 .**.. ‘ Stil- \‘4 7.3:: , N. K“ Agai'wal ' Judge No order as to costs. Kvr