I 1 HIGH COITRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEALICtNo. 1005/2007 APPELLANT Lalita@Savita D/o Ayatu,aged aboutlO CLAIMANT years, (Minor) through Ayatu, S/o Samlu Cast Muria, aged about 35 years, (Guardian) R/o Kriyakota, P.S. Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (CG) RESPONDENTS Versus 1. (Driver) Mr. Trinath @ Sildhar S/o Mangu Cast Kalar aged about 25 years, R/o ViU. and Post Jnara Tahsil Kondagaon, Dist. Bastar (CG) 2. (Owner) Mr. Ramchand Kashyap aged about 28 years, R/o vill. Bada Kurussar, P.S.Mardpal, Tahsil Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar(CG) 3. The Nationallnsurance Co. Ltd. on the Central Bank Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) SB:-Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J i PRESENT:- Shri Manoj Chouhan, Adv. on behalfofShri Rahul Jha.Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Akhilesh Mishra, Adv. for respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri Raj Awasthi,Adv. for respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (9-4-2010) Per N.K. Aearwal. J Heard on admission. 2. Appellant/ claimant is seeking enhancement of the conipensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 16-4-2007 passed in Claim Case No. 53/2007. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by,filinga elaim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries- sustained by her in the motpr accident on 17-9-2005, the Tribunal awarded a total syim of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. 4. Shri Chouhan, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low colitpensation of Rs. l,000/- only for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident, whereas "^gB]:d 5[0cq ^uspTOOB sqi jaye SJB3A OA^ psnssj SBA ^OQ^JSO re qons 'sissq ^BqM UQ •yiB\\3d&B aip pa^sfli iB^TdsoIi atll jo uosSjng IIATO arp jsi.paqAv 6^ SB UMOIGI 40U SI II •SJBa4 OA^ .[31JB p3UTBiqO SBM as'eo siqi UT uopssnb ur s^'Borfpjao aqj, "TT „ : ]:•[ •BJBct UI SUORBAJOSqO SuiAOnOJ 3Vft X.RUA. ASTA sures sip pa^Bjaiiaj 'soe 338 A (SOOe) UT ps^odaj 'jaq^ouB PUB qgu^s AAqpnA "A nfBa SBHB JB^BnH IIS3f'Ba JO 3SV3 3Vft UI uinioTp ^usosj B ui ^.inoo xady sqj, "2, ^•UA-BJpq^TA ussq ^pB3j[B ^ou SBq 41 ji '^Bunquj, 3tp Xq pspjBAB uop'esuadmoo jo ^unoure aq^ A^Jpi.ptA o^ pQMioy^e si i.uBuirep-:>u3puods3j aqj, •{Bunquj, SUITBIQ sip jo pxewe avft gjo^ssj pire .isp-io paugndun si.p spiSB ^ss 'yaddTs STip AO^TB SIA 'Xpusnbssuoo •uopBsusdmoo aup-supuequa pue aures sqi^UTqjnisip m psj-ts l.m.oo T1S?H 3rLE •iioi^BSuaau.ioo —irej pire ^sni B papjBAYB pire vjyiyi 'Vi"3. "-IGI jo uoR.isodap 3lp JO STSBq 9Lp UO ^USO jsd s T: I'B A^inqBSip IBOTSAqd aip pauiuus^sp ssq •[Bunquj, aqj, 'jo^oop I'eq^ jo uoi^BUTurexa-uou JQJ ^unquj, sq^ Aq ps^osls.t SBM s^oypjso ^oipsui s.Appsy .re3[Bqpng •JC[ ^ip IS'BJ 3Lp 3yp[ooij3AO OT JQJ.is ssoj3 psniuimoo ^moo qsiH aqj, •l.uso jsd Sfr 3cl o^ •^TtTclBSTP ^usueuusd SB .£mfuT stp Sup.'es.q Xq uop'esusduioo stp aoirequs pire Appsy .resiBqpng •-[Q ^q tisnssi STOogttJso Atniq^sTp afp uo £[93. o^ ^jnoQ qStH 3LB •Ioj uoi^OTjpsnf ou SBA sJsi.p yev^ pug SM '^jno^ t.lSiH 3vft J0 -tsp-io sqi. ^ioddns of. ^dmsn'B rre spBm oqA iiiBuirep-i.uapuddss.i 3Lp joj psunoo paurea'[ guijBsq -isyv "9» : japun si3 9 vjsdyci psAjasqo S-BM % upjaqA '681 038 21 (SOOZ) u! P^I-iodaJ 'Appa^ IBdn.tiiij, '<i 'A 3J,as 'd"V jo 3SB:> s^p ui liinoo xsdy sqi sjojsq uopBjsipisuoo JQJ dn sureo uopBsusdmoo sq^ jo luamsssssa ai^t JGJ aouapiAS SApire^sqns si3 uodn paip.i sq UBO s^oyr^jso si.p psnssi oqM. JQ;OOQ SI.P Smmurexs ^noqiTA tBunqu^, sip sjojsq lUBuirep SLp Xq psonpo.Id s^Boypjao tBoipam sq^ jsipsqA uoi^ssnb aqj, -9 •^iliq^sip ^usuBUijad AUB m ps^p-isa^ ssunCuT SsoLp fevft ^OBJ 3ip pue ^uappo^ TO^OUI sq^ ui iiremrep /^irensddB sq^ Xq psure^sns uasq SAB^ o^ pres saunfm sip jo sjn^^u 31-p qsnq'e^ss oi iBunquj, sq^ sjojsq psuiurexa SBM jo^oop QU ^UBuirBp / ^treipddB SL[-( UMOUSI isaq suos^a.! sqi. joj •3 •^uspTOOB J0}oui aqi ui saiunruisnouss 3{di^nm paureisns^tremrep /^uenaddB sip is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate exainined 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 otherwlse 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." 8. In the instant case, it is not proved as to how many days the appellant remained in hospital. It is also not proved as to how much amount she spent in treatment and, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the doctor has not been examined to prove the injury and certificates, an amount of Rs. 1,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant. 9. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir 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. For the foregoing reason§, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The appeal filed by tl^e. appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. - ~ Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge