1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,. ^idUlEdi !l flisc Appeal No. 56 of 2004. Chapdrakatn mahilange S/o Dhan Prasad' Ma!iilang, aged about 18 R/o Village Jarway Thana - Amanaka, Distt Rsipur (C.G) Respondents Non-applicants 1 Sita Ram Sahu, S/o Sri Manshs Ram Sahu, R/o Bhiiai Dabrapara, Bhiiai, Distt Durg (CG) 2 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Mansger, Divisional Office - Kachaharl Chov/k, Jaii Road - Raipur (CG) 3 Fool Kumar Kewat S/o Sri Rupnath Kewat, Aged abtou 32 years, R/o Khursipar - Bhiiai, Tahsil & Distt Durg (CG) llaneous apDeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehlde Act. 1i Present : Shri AL Singraul, counsei for the appeiiant. Shri Utkarsh Joshl, counse! for respondent No.1 Shri Neeraj Pradhan, counsel for respondent No.2. Nune for respondent No.3 though serv'ed. The following order of the Court was passed bv Rajeev Guota, C.J. ^ 1 .'BB^'J' l^ Appellant Chandrakant Mahilange is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 11.08.200.3, passed in Ciaim Case No.1 58/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, cSaimed by the appeilanVclaimant by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injurles sustained by him in the motor acddent on 16.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation atong with Interest @ 6% per annum from ths date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuat payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Chandrakant Mahlianae sustained multlple injuries in the motor accident on 16.05.2002; the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ^4etador bearing registration No.CG07-ZB-0445; as the offending vehicle IVIetador was being plied in breach of the policy condltions inasmuch as it was a goods vehicie and was carrying 'baratis' including the claimant, the insurer was not liable and the liabllity to pay compensstlon was that of the owner of the vehicle. / 4) The Tribunal constdering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustalned by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on his treatment -awarded Rs.5,737/- towards medical expenses; * :'';'1 •;it*;'" .:-SV 3 Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.2,000/- towards toss of income; and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of earning capaclty and thus, the total compensatlon of Rs. 14.737/- which was rounded off to Rs.15,000/- was awarded tothe ctalmant. The Tribunal further directed payment of Interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/-@ 6% per annum from the date of flllng of the cialm petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri AL Singraul, iearned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.15,000/- only though the appellanVclaimant sustained multiple serious injurles inctuding fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability; and in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the ciaimant. 6) Shri Neeraj Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company suppori:ed the award and contended that as the Metador was being plied in breach of the poiicy Conditions, the Insurance Company has been rightly exonerated bvtheTribunal. 7) Shri Utkarsh Joshi, tearnedcounsel for respondent No.1, the owner qf the Metador also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its iiability to pay compensation fo the claimant. 8) So far as the Tribunal's flndlng leading to the exoneration of the Insurapce Company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant is concerned, it is the settled law now that the Insurance 4 t Company is not liable to pay compensation when the claim relates to the injuries or the death of a person traveliing in a goods vehicle. We, therefore, do not find any inflrmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunai ieading.to the exoneration of the Insurance Company from its llability to pay compensation to the claimant. 9) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined himself alone as AW/1 In support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant / claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the apDellant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in anv permanent disability. 10) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribuna! without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. 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 disabHtty certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in . overiookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certlflcate was reiected bv the Tribunal ^ for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the phvsical disabllltv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancinq the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal.'set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribuna!. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunat, If it has not already been wlthdrawn." 11) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in }8) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11: "11. The certificate in guestion in this case was obtained after two years. !t is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himsetf. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the / provisions of the Workmen's Compensatlon Act or otherwise is not known. It Is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certiflcate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had elther been . raised before the Tribunal orthe High Court The Tribunal as aiso the High Court, therefore, ^9 proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raissd in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ^x facte has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." ' . 12) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (s'upra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medica! certificates produced by the appellanUciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into conslderation for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 13) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by fhe Tribunal. 14) The appeal, fited by the appelianVclaimant, therefore, is tiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice la. Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge padma