.\$ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.NO. (C^ / 2006 Appellant f Versus ResDondents ^(Non-applicants) w Shiv Kuiiiar Vaishnav S/o Bodhan Das Vaishnav Aged about 33 years R/o Bramhanpara^ Patan, Dist: DuTg-fC.G.) 1. G^arib Das @ ViJay S/o Munshi Ram Manikpuri, Aged about 26 years, R/o Sirdar Chowk, New Pureina Tikrapara Raipur-(C.O.) Satnarn Singh S/6 G6vitld Sittgh Aged about 27 yeara, Qr.No.C/19, R-D.A.Colony, Tikrapara, Raipur {Owner-Minibus CG-04 ZA0116) 3. ^ Branch Manager ^ ^ The New India Insiirance Co.Ltd^ \Branch-el, IInd Floor, Bajrang larket, R.D.A, Bhawan Raipur- (C.G.) (Insurance Co. of Mini Bus CG^- 4ZA0116 Policy No.450301 / 31 / 02/05 817 valid dated 29.11.02 to 28.11.03) MISC. APPEAL U/S 173 fl) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. j ;' ^.•f fr:'SS-HC—78 ^^ ^ 's^ r*{wm^, ^•^iw\Q, fsicni-f-iy ^IN^I ft»*11<t» "^200 6 ^!^lJ^^ ( yif^^) 3T?^T^ f^-tJoh 3r^T 3^?T sFRNr ^H^R^lftH 3^1 S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. /< 27.07.2009 Shri Shrawan Agrawal, Adv|ocate Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate| With the consent of the par^ chi^t^^ll 'HT1^ ^* f^TSt <Pn^K ^3tRW3?I^T igarwal for the appellant. for the respondent No. 3. ies, the matter is heard finally. The instant appeal has b|een preferred by the appellant, seeking enhancement of compe|isation against the award dated 21.02.2006, passed by Xllth A^lditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg (for short 'T| whereby and whereunder an aijnount of Rs. 23000/- alongwith interest @ 7 percent per a inum has been awarded as compensatjon in favour of the app|ellant. The brief facts of the ca^e are that, on 01.11.2003, the appellant while coming from Raip 04 CD-3935 met an accident with 'ibunal') in claim case No. 28/05, jrto Patan in Motorcycle No. CG Mini Bus bearing registration No. CG 04 ZA-0116 near Amleswar:<pue to rash and negligent drivjng of the Mini Bus, and pursuant to s^id accident sustained injuries; The appeliant preferred ^r] application before the Tribunal under SectiQn 166 of the |Vlotor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of |Rs. 3,27,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of s^id accident. L XI-HC—78 ^i^cij a»*iicft '3'^T ^1<41<'1<4, yxll'H^Ko, I®l<yll-(-l^< g^.M.A......^.......-....-.......^2oo^ a^l^T ^^K (^cti^^) ^Ti^T ^? f€^ioh "WT 3Ty^T 9^^i<^ '^IT^R Tiftn 3?^y -2 <=M^t^l<fll 'RT^ff ^* fs^ <F»l^l< i73tRm37T^r The Tribunai, on close scri parties, the materiai availabie on the parties, awarded total amount in favour pf the appellant. 4tiny of the evidence led by the the record, and submissions of of Rs. 23,000/- as compensation Shri Agrawal, counsel for aithough the Doctor has not be^n looking to the fact that the appella| right leg, right eye, head and fin^ awarded is shocking on lower si|: and the compensation be enhanc^ 1 have heard the learned ct and perused the record. :he appellant wouid submit that examined in this matter, but it sustained gravious injury in his ler of the left hand, and amount je, this appeal may be allowed d. Dunsel appearing for the parties The Supreme Court in cas|e Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 S( under: e of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupa! ;C-189, observed in para 6 as "6. After hearing learned claimant who made an atterrt>t High Court. We find that th^i High Court to rely on the dis^ Sudhakar Reddy and enhanc^ the injury as permanent disa| High Court committed gross e\ Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medica| Tribunal for non-examination has determined the physical<|! basis of the deposition of Dr; ^ounsel for the respondent- to support the order of the re was no justification for the ibility certificate issued by Dr. the compensation by treating ^ility to be45 per cent. The 'ror in overlooking the fact that certificate was rejected by the of that doctor. The Tribunal lisability at 15 per cent on the <.M. Mitra and awarded a just ..; ^i XI-HC—78 TST ^iqi<nq, y>-a1^<i(o, f«idl^!j,< Hw^it «»*<icn "^.200^ 3n^?r '(T5RT ((icifl<si^) W^¥l"^l f^licb ^^T3n^I^R$^ l' ^HW^f^T 3?T^l r and fair compensation. The the same and enhancing the we allow this appeal, set restore the award ofthe Ciai claimant is allowed to withdrs awarded by the Tribunal, withdrawn." The Supreme Court in a Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated observations in para 11: <=ftj<<f<n4lt1 'W^ff "^* fe^ ipjt^K ^>3:ifiFT3^T the "11. The certificate in ques^ after two years. It is not \\ Surgeon of the hospital trej basis, such a certificate w^ accident took place is not k| certificate had not been exanl High Court erred in disturbing compensation. Consequently, >ide the impugned order and is Tribunai. The respondent- the amount of compensation if it has not already been ecent dictum in case of Rajesh Singh and another, reported in same view with the following certificate evidence. examined himse the basis of the provisions o1 ion in this case was obtained nown as to whether the Civil ated the appellant. On what s issued tn/o years after the lown. The author of the said lined. Unless the author of the it was not admissible in Whether the dis^ility at 60% was calculated on the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not kno^n. It is also not known as to whether he was competent jto issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that tlfe contentions raised before us had either been raised befoN The Tribunai as also the Hij on the materials brought c| absence of any contention tj the Tribunal or the High Court. jh Court, therefore, proceeded n record by the parties. In aving been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workrfien's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has 1^0 application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted fo be raised for the firsttime." ~' -HC—78 'S^ ^WW^, y>Tl)^l|(o, fs|diy;j,< wwi *ii* ...n^..-^^.....................^ 200^ ^?r '(T^RT (ysl^^) 3?1^T ^T l^fT^ ^: ^^TF ^H^T^ii^ ^ Sahu ^HW;R{^3?i^T Ji A Division Bench of this Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu March, 2009, placing its reliance in the cases referred above held i ("ligh Court in case of Pradeep |& anotherwde order dated 31st |upon the dicta of Supreme Court para 8 as under: "8. In view of the above qi the cases of A.P. SRTC v. fl. Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v| (supra), the certificate produ{;ed absence of examination ofthje is neither admissible in evitience consideration as substantive compensation in the case." |oted dicta of the Apex Court in ^ Thirupal Reddy (supra) and Yudhvir Singh and another before the Tribunal in the Doctor issuing the certificate nor can be taken into fevidence for assessment of the In a motor accident claim Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w| compensation to be awarded by and proper cpmpensation in thej case. It is neither a bounty nor c^arity. For the reasons mentione(i scope for enhancement of thej Tribunai. The appeal fiied by the s^p compensation istherefore liablet( order as to costs. <=M^F<n4ii '^HH^if ^' 'feTst' <M^I< ^I 3ffOT3T?^T ;ase, as per Section 1 68 of the hat is important is that the Courts/Tribunal should be just facts and circumstance of each the hereinabove, 1 do not find any compensation awarded by the a|3pellant for enhancement of the be and is hereby dismissed. No Sd/- M.K.Agarwal Judge