HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A,No.734of2005 Baleshwar Versus Rashid Bus Service and others. For Pronouncement of Order ^ 1 'Esa aSpnf SVAVMVHf 'T g -/PS )J .^w.~-.. -^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR SiNGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRi R.L.JHANWAR. J. Misc. Aopeai No.734 of 2005 Baleshwar, Son of Shri Shivoa! Ram, aged about 30 years, resident of ViHage-Shivpur, Post-Karji, OccupatioR- Agricu'ture, Poiice Station-Darima, Tahsi! Ambikapur, District - Surguja RESPONDENTS (C.G.5 v^- VERSUS he 1. Rashid Bus Sen/ice, Through: Proprieior, Rashid Bus Sewice, Ambikapur, Proprietor Abdul Rashid Son of Shri Guiam Rasooi, Viliage Jarhagarh, Police Station, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (OVtfNEROFVEHICLE) 2. The United Insurance Company Limifed, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (INSURER) 3. Rajkumar Son of Unknown, Dr'ver of V/ehicle, aged about 35 years, Resident of VHIage - Turna, Tahsii-Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja(C.G.) (DRiVER) :R SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri Sushi! Dubey, counsei for ths appellant. Shri S. S. Agrawa!, counsel for respondent No.2 ORDER (Passedon (^<03.2011) This.is claimant's appeai. Not being satisfied by the amount of compensation of Rs.1000/- awarded by the 2" Additiona! Motor Accidents C'aims Tribunai, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja in Claim case No.21/2002, the ciaimant preferred this instani appea! for enhancement of amount of tion. 2. As against the compensatlon of Rs.60,000./- sought by the appelianVclaimant by fiiing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on IEF" 5R"'W^Sf^^^y/'-'1^^ '^ r- 12.09.2001, the Tribunal, on dose scrutiny of the evidence, materia! placed on record and submissions made by respecti'/e parties, held that as a rssult of rash and neg!igent driving of driver of bus bearing M.P. 27- 5477 (for short 'the offending vehic!e'), the offending vehicle turnsd turtle and appe!!ant received simpte injuries; as the said offending truck was insured with the United India insurance Co. Ltd., the insurance company was aiso iiable to pay compensation amount and awarded Rs.1000/- as tota! compensation for the simp!e injuries sustained by the appeliant in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed the respondents to pay ths compensation amount jointly and severaily, aiong with jnterest at 6% p.m. from the date of filing of ctaim petition till the reaiizatton of amount. 3. Aggrieved therewith, the appel'ant / claim preferred this appea! for snhancement of compensation. 4. Shri Sushi! Dubey, learned counse! for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding !ow compensation of Rs.1000/-, although the Doctor has not been examined. He further argued that iooking to the fact that the appeliant sustained grievous injuries and amount awarded bys the Tribunal is shockingly on iower side, this appeal may be aliowed and the compensation may be suitably enhanced. 5. On the other hand, Shri S.S. Agrawal, learned counsei for respondent No.2 argued in support ofthe impugned award. 6. I have heard iearned counsel for the parties and perused the records ofthe Tribuna! including impugned award. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.SRTC v. P. Thirupa! Reddy, (2005) 12 SCC 189, observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned counse! for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court. We find that there was no justffication for the High Court to reiy on the dlsabiSity 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 overiooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medica! certificate was rejected by the Tribunai for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the physicai disabiiity at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M.Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same »" and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, wa aliow this appeal, set aslde the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is aliowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." aite: 8. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh atias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, (2008) 7 SCC 305, reitsrated fhe same view with the foilowing observations in para 1 1: "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 hospita! treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not know. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Un.iess the author of the certificate examined himseif, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was caiculated on the basis of the pi'ovlsions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not knovi/n. !t is a!so not known as to whether he v/as cornpetent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either baen raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. in absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appiicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no applicatlon, 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 & snotter vide order dated 31 Mareh, 2009, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred abo'/e 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. Thirupal Reddy (supra) and (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunai 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 assessmer.t of the compensation in the case." 10. Admittedly, the claimant in his own wisdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injuries sustained in the motor accident and to prove the resuitant loss. !n view of the dicta of the above referred cases, the injury reports, certificates produced, in the absence of examination ofthe Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are neither admisslble in evidence KBKl*l!"Bli'!;W1. nl gsifill nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in fhe case. 11. !n a motor accident claim case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988, what Is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunai should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither a bounty nor 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not flnd any scope for enhancement ofths compensation awarded bythe TribunaS. 13. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation is, therefore, iiable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- R .L. JHANWAR Judge \\