HIGH COURT’OF CHHAT'IISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL NO. 324 OF 2002 MEMO OF MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988. (Single Bench: Hon‘ble Mr. N.K. Aqgrwal, J?) Present : Shri Kunal Das, counsel for The appellan’r. Shri Vivek Chopra, counsel for responden‘r No. 2. Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel on behalf of respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24'” day of July, 2009) The insfanf appeal is directed againsf fhe award dated 01-10-2001 seeking enhancemenf of compensa’rion passed by 'Addi‘rional Mo’ror Accidents Claims Tribunal (for shorT ‘fhe Tribunal), Dham’rari in Claim Case No.2211995 whereby and whereunder an amounf of Rs.i5,000/: has been awarded as APPELLANT Somprgkash Sahu, S/o Dayalul Aged [claimant] Vabou? 18 year's, R/o Village ‘Doma‘, Tahsil & Dish‘. Dhamfar‘i (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Shobharam Sidur', S/o Vishal aged abou’r LNon- 3O years, R/o Village: ‘Bhakhar‘a’, Tahsil ggplican‘tg Kurud, Dis’rf. DhamTari. 2. Sm‘r. Kan‘ri Bai W/o Champalal Sahu, Aged about Years, R/o 'Chopka Gali' TaTya Para, Raipur, Dis'r‘r. Raipur (6.6.) 3. Unifed India Insurance Co. L1'd., City Branch Office—1, 'Amar Complex, LIC Road, Pandri,.Raipur, DisT’r. Raipur (C.G.) compensation on account of injuries susToined by the appeHanT in fhe accident 4. Brief fac’rs of The case are That on 04-02—1995 The appelian’r was dashed by fhe offending vehicle Minibus bearing regisfrafion No. MP 23/J—0127 and as a resuH of which the appellanf susfained injuries in the motor accident. The appellant preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence and material available on record, passed the award and awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- in favour of the appellant along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per medical examination, Ex. P-4 filed before the Tribunal, the appellant sustained fracture in his hand, and therefore, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is shockingly on lower side. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 8. For the reasons best known to the appellant, He has not examined the doctor to prove the injuries sustained by him. 10. The question whether medical certificate produced by o L ‘ HE A , the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctor who had eifher‘ been raised before The Tribunal or fhe High Court. The Tribunal as also The High CourT, *herefor'e, proceeded on fhe maTerials broughT on record by the parties. In absence of any confen'fion having been raised in regard ‘ro ihe applicabili'iy of ’rhe 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.” c 12. The Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. sari/pa sally & anafher vide order dated 31“ March, 2009 placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme ourt 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 AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupa/ Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju V. Yudhw’r Sing/I and anarher (supra), the certificate 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." 13. In a motor accident claim case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 what is important is that the compensation can be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be j ust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the caSe. It is neither a bounty nor the charity. 14. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the dicta of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases referred hereinabove, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. TherefOre, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. o order as to costs. Soy-- N. K. Agawval ,1: *~~w_ Judge no? C N