DWISION BENCH K I ORAM: HON‘BLE SHRI RAJEEV GliPTA, G.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATFg CHANDRAKAR. . X i Misc. Appeal (C) No. 594§of 2006 ppenan nrmal Waswam age 18 yeats s/o hn Raju Waswani r/o near R At N S aj V!dlo Katora Talab Raipur C VERSU8 Narendra Pal sungh s/o n kbai Smgh r/o near Pundary Get Pundty, Ralpur C G Chhabl Lal Pate s/o Shn oopa Patel r/o Saraipall Tahstl Saralpall dlstnct Mahasamund C G New lndia lnsumnce Company Ltd., Divisional Oflice, Madina Building, Kachheri Chduk Tahsil and distric Ralpur C.G. Misc. APPEAL UNDERsEcTION 173 OF THE MOTO IEHICLE$ AGE 1$$8w Respondents Present: Shn s S Ragput counsel lorthe appellant hri Anil Gulatl counsel for respondent No hn Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. S ~ \ ORDER (4* April A2011) he followmg order of the Court was passed y“ T b, Rajeev Gupta, c J Appellant! claimant Nlrmel Waemnl ’enhancement'ofthe oomensatron‘award'edvblhe’liwdditionelz; ' ‘ pya qr .is seking ~ C J G ; Sh E ‘ : l Rdhr , t R S 2 : e l r i Motof Aocident Claims Tribunal, Raigluf (for short ‘the‘ Tribunal) vide award dated 20.07.2006, passed pn Ciaim Case No.05l2005 ¥ S ’ r 2} As against the compensation of Rs 5 70 000i- chimed by]. ‘ > appeilant/ claimant Nirmal Waswam through his father Ragu, Waswam by fling a ctalm petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehlcies Act for the Injuries sustained by him In the motor acoldent on28;09.2004, the :Trlbunal awarded a total sum of Rs.20,789/— as: oompensation a'Iong withiriterest Q 6%per a annum from the date of filingof theiolaim petitionsatill the date of actual payment. v3) Shri S.S. Rajput, teamed counset for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has'erred in exonerating the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck from its iiability to pay y compensation to the isolaimants; and in awarding low V compensation of Rs.20i78791-only though the‘appellantlclaimant _ sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the macr ’ accident. 4) 7 Shri‘Dashrath Gupta leamed counsel for respondent No 3 «the New lndia Insurance Company Limited the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the dnver of the Truck was not holding a) e-valid and effective drivmg license the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of the Truck from Its liability tomay r, compensation to the claimant /r//// ‘ ,ud Ia‘h v e unsel or rasaden‘t No. enb La! Paw the owner of the ofeding vehiee ruc contended that the Tribunal has Mongly exona t is V o Tuc é iibtyt y compnsation to theclaimntg Befo i gxd s I W t NWni) ncluding himself (AW1 Raju Wasani ani AW£ irmalaewa m suport of his ctaim For the reasons best known to h mant and his father no doctor was examined eore t ibunal to estabiish the nature of the inunessaid toahavevee sustained the claimant in the motor acident and the tacttha hose-'lnurie ev an tibtlit he questin whethe the medicai eemrmtetpmducec b m7) T o r d y he claimant before the ’Trlbuna" Withot examiningrte oco o id the certificate-Can e‘relid' pon as susanv vence for the assessent ofthe corpensatin oame up fo ideration abero‘r’the” Aex courtin eme cf . v. . Thirual Reddy, reorted inizoooz 3c: 139, heein i wasn p6 dr: observed‘i ara asune 6 fter hearing learne laimant who made an attempt-Ito support the order of th High Court we fnd that there was no justrtication for th High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued b r Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation b reating the injury as permanent disability to be 5 pe t 4 r hri Ann Gula, 5) s' ti hai , fh l Tk erted he nurer f the rk frm its alit‘o pa e ra re the Trbunat. the claimant eamine two Wttnesso larned ‘Go f pn 2, p te a otai bi he ‘ Tr j bn by :o t tjs resultdin nype’rmaent isay. t l u h Dtr t wh ssue be u bttie eid m no r cons e p r th M3 sRTc P p p ‘fi 7c wé t “. A d counsel for the respondentm c e e y . D y ~x deposmon of Dr KM Mrtm and awa'ded a lust and fatr compensatuon. The High Court erre1d In gisturblng the same and enhancing the compensatiion. Consequently, we auow this appeal, set aside the irppugned erder and { I restore the award of the Claimé Tribunat. The respondem—ctaimant is atlowed to wtth’idraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not 1p already been withdrawn.” , i l i i i . (o 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum ’in the casepf 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 : l “11. The certificate tn question in this case was g i obtained after two years. lt is not knownas to whether; f the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appetlant On what basrs such a certificate was issued two years g K, after the accident took place Is not known The author of 0 the said certifcate had not been examined. Unless the ,l author of the certificate examined himself it was not i l admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60%“ was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act orotherwise is not known. lt is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. lt even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised i 1 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 otvv any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, i in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion cannot be permitted to be raised for the fsst time " x 9) The medical certmoates prodqced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the docters who had issued those certifloates, in view of the above quoted ‘dicta of the £pex Court in the cam or A.P. sRrc v. P. Thirdpai Ready (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v: Yudhvir Singh and another gSupm), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 10) IVWe, therefore, do not hnd any wope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) So far as the finding reeorded by the Tribunai leading to exoneration of the insurer of the Truck is conoemed, we gather from paras 19 to 24 of the impugned award that the Tribunal'after considering the evidence led by the Insurance Company by q examining the licensing clerk of the R.T.0., NAW‘i Raiesh Kumar ~ Bharghav, came to the conclusion that the license of the driver of the Truck was never issued by the R.T.O. Raipur and as such, the said license was a fake and forged license 12) 0n a thorough scrutiny of the entire evrdence available on record and the contents of the license of the Truck driven We are. satisfied that the above tinding recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. x \ or g