IN THE HIGH COl/RTOFJb'PICATL'REATBILASPL'RCCG) M15CELLANEOU5 APPEALNQ^l6^004. APPELLANT eiAlMANT .- C1) Rupesh Kum^r 5/o Sri Bali Rgm Agej gbouf- 18 ye3K, R/o Viilage- Jgmgy, Tbang- Amgngkg, Pisft- Raipu<C.G.) VER5US R.ESPONPENT NON-APPLICANT / p') 'y yr2; ^f;.--. ^g^- ^^s^"' ? c-"^-.^'? -.0. 5it3 Rsm Sghu 5/o 5ri Mansbg Ram 53hu TruckOwner, R/o Bhil^i, Dabrapara, Bhilai, Distt- Durg(C.G) Tbe Oneh't?! Insuqnce Company Limifeci., Throu^b'.Pivisiiongl Mgngcje^Djvisiongl Office, Kgch^h^ri Chowls, ^il Rogj, R^ipur. CC.G.) Fool Kumar Kewg-t, S/o Sri Rup N^th Kewg-i, Agej gbouf- 32 yegrs, Occupgfion- Truck Pfive^ R/o - KbuKip^i-, Bbiiai, Distt- Pui-gCCG.) MjsceLbneous Appegl uncier/serfion 173 Mofoi- VehicleAci1988 £ejn^_3ggrie\/ec} by the Jujgemen-i: and award passed by *riA4(ii'tional Motof Acci<ieo't Claims Tribunal, anAJ2isjnct "Tujge.Raipui-, in clgim case no. 15fc?2002, jatej t[S)a2QOj niihe_case_ofRupesh Kumgr Vetsus Si-ta Ram 5ahu iSLothets, Valuation ofAppea! Rs. 1.58.127/- i^.-.^^^.EtSi ^WS^^!£sf ^'3S^Vfje*^^.^-y&^^^- ii^::iii:'^.'h S::|::ti HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 346 OF 2004 ^r^ f^} Appellant Claimant Respondents Non- applicants Rupesh Kumar Versus Sita Ram Sahu & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal.J.) Pfesent : Shri SC Verma with Shri Aditya Khare, Advocates for appellant. Shri Sanjay S Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No. 2, None for respondent No. 3. ORALORDER (Passed on 19 day of January, 2010) Heard on M(C)P No. 1075/04, application for condonation of detay in filingthe appeal. On due consideration, 1 am satisfied that the counsel for appeltant has succeeded in explaining the delay caused in filing this appeal. Accordingly M(C)P No. 1075/04 is allowed and delay caused in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appeiiant, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 11.08.2003, passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (forshort 'Tribunal') in claim case No. 156/02. The brief facts of the case according to the appellant are that, on 16.05.02, the appellant met with an accident with Matador bearing registration No.- CG-07/ZB-0445, due to which the appellant sustained injuries. The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,00,0007- for the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident. ss-^'Sai. 6. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material availabte on the record, and submissions of the parties, awarded total amount of Rs. 11,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but looking to the fact that the appellant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded is shocking on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. 9. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "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 justiflcation 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 overiooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non-examination of 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 fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 10. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Ra]u v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated thesame view with the following observations in para 11: "11. The certiflcate 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 cerfficate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certiflcate 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 ..^Udlttuu^ >t3i! k1 3ahu 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 applicabitity of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, eannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 11. A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & anotherwde order dated 31st 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. Thlrupal Reddy (supra) and Rafesh Kumar allas 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." 12. 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 ofthe dicta ofthe 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 betaken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. _- Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge