--"l ll IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) MISCELLANEQUS_APPEAL_[CUMQ^n--^ QF 2010 ^APPELLANT *1 r^- ^ ..-•" *" ' ..6 '^>'.'%•' NON-APPLICANTS: 1. 2. Samaru Satnami, aged about 35 years, S/o Bhuvan Satnami, Occupation Massion (Rajmistri), R/o Village Jagannathpur, Tahsil Saja, At Present R/o Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (G.G.) VERSUS Lalit Kumar Sahu, aged about 24 years, S/o Ramnaresh Sahu, Driver, R/o Village Mohgaon, Police StationSaja, Tahsil Saja, District. Durg (C.G.) Janardan Rao Shinde, aged about 45 years, S/o Balaram Shinde, Owner, R/o Village Mohagaon, Police Station Saja, District Durg (C.G.) Claimed before Tribunal : Rs. 15,30,000/- Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal : Rs. 15771/- Claimed in this Memo of Appeal : Rs. 70,000/- The appellant has re-assessed the claim value in the instant appeal on the basis ofthe evidence and the material available on the record as well as his income. ..^/r MISCELU\NESOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHEMOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Appellant Non-applicants M.A. (C)No. 236 of 2010 Samaru Satnami Versus : Lalit Kumar Sahu & Another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEi-UCLESACT Present (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Shri SP Sahu, Advocate for appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9m day of March,2010) Heardon admission. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 06.11.2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bemetara, Distt. Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') In claim case No. 64/09. The brief facts of the case according to the appellant are that, on 23.04.2309, while the appellant was traveling on his motorcycle bearing registrationNo. CG-07/LJ/1250, the driver of motorcycle (Boxer) bearing registration No. CG-07/ZX/5348, dashed the appellant's motorcycle due to which the appellant sustained multiple injuries. The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimlng compensation to the tupe of Rs. 15,30,000/- for the injuries sustained by hlm on account of the said accident. 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. 15,771/- as compensation in favour of the appellant. • •^•; 8. 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 multiple injuries, and amount awarded is shockingly on lower side, thfs appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 1 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. Thlrupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "S.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 justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanert disabilHy to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overiooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical cert'ficate 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 Uie impugned order and restore the award ofthe Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is atlowed 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: •> "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 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 certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate 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 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 Tribunat as also the High Court, therefbre, 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." 9. A DMsion Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & anoffiervide order dated 31st ^4arch, 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. Thirupal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Rafu 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 admissibte in. evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case." 10. 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 of the dicta of the above referred cases, the injury reports, certificates produced, in the absence of examlnation of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substanth/e evidence for enhancement of compensation In the case. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The appeat 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. Agarwa! Judge Sahu