w. . .. ‘ . M . IN THE Hw COURT O HHATTISGARH AT EILASLUR M.A. No. ISO/2003 mg [E3EW@ PI LLANT : '/Phoolkunwar, Wife ofBu_jeJ_al (“Qk l CLAhMANT a ‘ Vishwakarma, aged about 45 years, f Y Oggupation Housewife & Rgriculture, R/o. village Kaskela, P.s. Jay- nagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERS US ¥ . , ONDENTS 1 . Niranjan, S/o. Heeralal Rajwade, ' aged about 30 years, Occupation , Agrlculture, R/o. Village Kamlapur, P.S. Jaynagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (DRIVER) Mgstafa Aalam, s/o. Mohammad Anvar, R/o. Village Karanjee, Tahsil — SurajpurJ Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (OWNER) 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through— Branch‘Manager, Uhited India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Near ‘Ram’ 'Mandir, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (INSURER) PE§L U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR THE ENHANCE- MENT OF THE AWARD :- éAppeal Valued\in sum of Rs. 1, 00006)»?- éCourt fee paid Rs. 15 /—p! ¥;;‘;~ ’g P _3 IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA. No. 1180 of 2003 Phoolkunwar Versus Niranjan & Others RESPONDENTs W‘ g Present : Shri Ashok Shukla withVShri Atanu Ghosh, Advocates for 1. The instant appeal has been. preferred by the appeuant, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 31.10.2003, passed by_ the lilrd Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (for short ‘the Tribunai') in claim case No. 46/2002. Brief facts of the case according to the appeiiant are that, on .10.09.1998, when the, appeiiant was standing in front of her house, the driver of Scooter bearing registration No. MP-27- 0/8178, dashed the appellant due to which the appellant sustained multiple injuries. 3. The appellant preferred application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000i- for the injuries sustained by her on account of the said accident. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, awarded total amount of Rs. 3,000l— as compensation in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but tooking to the fact that the appeuant sustained multipte injuries, and amount awarded is shockingly on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. l have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the award impugned. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal :R‘egdy, reported in (2006) 12 scc-189, observed in para 6 as under: "5.After hearing learned counsel for the respondent‘claimant who made a‘n attempt to support the order of the High Court. We tind that-there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certtncate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Raddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking 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. KM. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentty, 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.” The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 scc 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11: “1 1 .The certificate 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 certidcate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was notadmissible 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 known. lt is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear raised before that the the contentions Tribunal or raised the High before Court. us had The either Tribunal been i u Sahu as aiso 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 tirst time." A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sampa Sahu & another vide order dated 31“ March, 2009, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above held in para 8 as under: “8. ln view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvr'r Singh and another (supra), the certihcate 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. Admittedly, the claimants in his own wisdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the accident and to prove the resultant loss. 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 for enhancement of compensation in the case. Neither multiple injury was found nor permanent disability certificate was tiled. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The appeal tiled 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. Agarwal Judge i i