;N_‘T§E__H§_G§ gogRg gF__c_H~HgTgI_s_GARH AT BxLASPUR (CG) 2L ? 3 /2002 M.A.NO. ./ APPELLANTS : l) ailashi, wd/o. Late Ramnath, CLAIMANTS aged about 6O years,’ Occupation- house/wife. 2) araswati, Wd/o. Late Ramnath, aged about 55 years, Occupation— house ife. 3) . Sangita, D/o. Late Ramnath, aged about 15 years, minor ” ,/ through : Guardian mother Saraswati w/ ‘5 s /X?\£liékg;. /:‘: ;:g:é:fte Ramnath, aged about 55 ‘ "' n‘a‘ I 5:: ‘ 3.‘@é $VV£: < my}! 4) hjarézi Kumar Gupta, S/O. Late Ramnath, aged about 10 years. minor through : Guardian mother Saraswati Wd/o. ‘Late Ramnath, aged about 55 years 4/ 4/ , 5) . Anita, D/O. Late Ramnath, aged about 4 years, minor, through : guardian, mother Saraswati, Wd/o. Lte Ramnath. All are resiééht of village —Wz}. Chouky asdeyee, Police Station — Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS , x x” / RESPONDENTS g/ l) run Kgmar, E/o. Redhe: shyam, NON—APPLICANTS / aged about 32 years, R/o. Ambikapur, Police Station and Tahsil - Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) (OWNER) 2) akhan Prajapati, S/o. Jana}: wt .e. . .02 v a n n O N u u Prajapati, aged about 36 years, R/o. Ambikapur, Police Station and Tahsil - Ambikaplfr, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) . ( IVER) 3 nited India Insurance Co. Ltd. hrough : Branch Manager, Branch 'L Office, Ambikapur, Near Ram , Mandir, Distt. Surguja ( CG). (INSURER) APPEAL UNBER SECTION {DF THE MOT§R VEHICLE ACT: 1988 FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF AWARD. . ) / @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 241 of 2002 Kailashi & Others Versus Arun Kumar & Others resent ¢ ‘Shri Atanu Ghosh, Advocate for appellants. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for respondent N 3. o. 0) Heard on admission. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 14.12.2001, passed by the lst Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Camp Court, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 149/01. 2. The brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that, on 09.02.1995, while the appellant’s father Ramnath was traveling in i; v Bus bearing registration No. CPL-8002, the said Bus turned turtle due to Which the father of appellants sustained injuries. 3. The father of appellants preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident. Later on, father of appellants died and the appellants were substituted in his place as his legal representatives. 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. 5000l- as compensation in favour of the appellants. P Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that although the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but looking to the fact that her father sustained multiple injuries, and amount awarded is shockingly on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the atnount 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 AP. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Raddy, reported in (2005) 12 SOC-189, observed in para 6 as under: u f6.After hearing learned counsel for the respondentwclaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court. We tind that there was no justitication 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 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. 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 mis 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 Courtiin a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singhand another, reported in (2008) 7 scc 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para11: “1 1 .The certihcate in question in this case was obtained after two years. lt is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. 0n what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certiticate 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 certihcate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the Hih Court. The Tribunal as aiso the High Court. therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. ln 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." A Division Bench of this High Couit in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sampa Sahu &, another vide order dated 315‘ 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 Raddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar‘alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the certiticate 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 subsmnt'ive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case.“ 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. ln 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. ' 11. or the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No 7% order as to costs. Sci!» Sahu, ‘3 N. K. Agarwal r Judge M F