SINGLE BENEH Ameer Dhan Vishwakarma ,' S/o. Tulsi Ram Vishwakarma, Aged about 44 years, Occupation— Service . R/o . Bi shrampur, Qtr.No. 1—B/34, P. S . Bishram— pur, Tahsil Surajpur District Surguja (C.G.) . r VERSUS RESPONDENTS c/l'éL Chhattisgarh Infra Structure v‘NON-APPLICANTS Development Corporation , Depot Ambi kapur , Through Manager, Ambikapur Depot , District Surguja (C.G.) Managing Director, Chhatti sgarh Infra - Structure Development Corportaion, Raipur (C.G.) Bhagwan Dutt Tiwari , S /o . Sarju Tiwari, Aged about 45 years , Occupation- Driver, Chhattisgarh 4C.G.I.S.D.C. Ambi kapur , Through Di rector, C.G.I.S.D.C. Ambikapur,Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 4 .J State of Chhattisgarh, " Through Collector, District ‘\ Surguja (C.G.) 7/ APPEAL U/S. \iég3 0(F M.V. ACT FOR ENHANW i Appeal Valued in Rs.l“,/O0,000/- ' I éairusiwe Depet gs‘wiwés“ wwgEH‘é Qxi La QQN 1373 $F “Q kit E r ‘3 GR V§HECLE u ‘ r-kv A f‘T t 5 1.“;9. QQ€3 €S§i3g§e Seam: é‘mn‘me Mr. MK. Aqag’waa. $3,} ' Ei‘reaém : Shré AK. $hukia, ccunsei with Shri Atanu GhOSh. caunsei far the appeh‘ant. $nn’ Warunenara Misha caunse: hr resmna$m3 NM & 2. None for fe$nandaats No3. Shri Suryakant Mishra, mwaa far resama‘ent No.4 G$§AL $R$E§ {Passw an 1!?“ §ay 3f W” MM} wusya .au “Me irmtaat appeaé Ms been pre erred by Ehe ame‘iant fer seeking ermancemem sf cenmensaiien againsé the aware: cmed m-G4—2005 passed by Second Addi. Maior Aacédent Cka£ms Tribanai‘, Surajpur, Dim. 3urgu§a {for short ‘ihe Tribunar) in daim case No‘ 20/2GG3 Wheraby and Whereunder an amount 0f Rs. E’;33€§!— aiong wi‘ih interest @ 9% per armum has béen awarded as mmpensatian in faveur 0f the appenant from me date 9f app§icatéon w} it$ recovery. 2. gzief facts of the oase according to the appen‘am are that on 03—12-19W, the appe‘iiant Whiie traveEing from Bés‘nrampur f0 mb§kapur by Zeep bearing regéotration No. MKA 8405, was dashed by offending vehioie (Boo) bearing rogistratton No, CJI Q31. due to rash and negiigeni' ci¥£ving of éhe driver of me Ems. 33 a resm 3, The appeiiant preferred an agoe ication bekwe the ‘f‘rieuoa; under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicées Act ofaiming e" y 1 oainee mu tépge mguréee. C SUStai’ned by him in the said accident. ! mpensation to the tuhe bf Rs. 9,00,000/— for the injuries 44 The Tribunai, cm a ciose scrutiny of the evidence 3ed by su‘bmi3séons a?“ the parties, awarded total amount of Rs. ‘?,3301— aicmg \ wiih interegé §% per ahnum as compensation in favour of the‘ appeilant. 5, beamed ihe mrties, the materia! avaiiable 0n the record, and counsel f0; the appellant weu§d Submit that eithougn ine Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but iooking to ine fact that ine eepelian? sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded by tee Tribunai is shockingiy on lower Side, inis eepea; may be eirowed and ihe compensaiion be enhanced. I. 1 have 9'. heard the learned counsel appearing for the appelient and perused the record. K The Supreme Court in'case of AP. SRTC, v. R rhirupai' Hedwig reporied in (2605} 12 $CC-i39, observed in para 5 as undeh “6. After nearing 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 reiy on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Raddy and enhance the oompensatiqn by Cgh? treating the iniury as permanent disability to be 45 per overtooking the tact that Dr. Sudhairar Recidy’s medical certificate was rejected by the Trtbunai for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has {ietermined the physical disability at i5 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. Mitre and awarded a just and fair compensaiion. The High Court erred in o’isturbing the same and enhancing ihe compensation Consequentiu we allow this appealhset aside the impugned order and restore the award ofmthe Ciaims Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of aireaoiy compensation been withdrawn.”‘ awarded by the Tribune. it it .as not The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another; reported in gin. The High Court cemmitted grass error in (20pm 7 SCC 305, reiterated the Same View with the foliowing observations in para 1 1 : \ 11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained a after two years. it is not kncwn as to whether the Civil Surgeon at the hospitai treated the appeiiant. 0n what basis, euch a certificate was iesued two years after the accident took piace is hot known. The euihur 0f the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the auther of the certificate examined himseif. it was not admissibie in evidenee. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was caicuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Ccmpensatisn Act er otherwise is net knewn. it is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a raised before us had either. been raised befcre the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunal as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeoed on the materials brought on record by the parties. in absence of any contention having beer? raised in regard to the appiicabiiity of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” ‘o genificate. it even doés not appear that the contentions 9. A Division Bench of this High Court in ease of iyfacieep Kama! 3am! vs. $aruoa saint e another vide order dated 31f” March, 2009, piecing its reiience upon the dicta 0t Supreme Court in the cases referred above heid in para 8 as under: “8. tn View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of AP. SRTC v. P. Thimpa.’ Redd}; {supra} and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (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 assessment of the compensation in the case 10. Admittediy, the ctaimant in his own wsdom 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 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 be taken into consideration as substantive evidence tor enhancement of compensation in the case. I “ i 11. 1n a motor accident ciaim case, as per $ection 188 of the Motor, Vehicles Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunai shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of i 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 Tribunai. 13. ’ ‘ The appeal fiied by the appeiiant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore iiabie to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/‘- N. K. Agarwal Judge \_. . Kvr