HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL NO. 466 OF 2mm Smt. Parvati, W19 Shri Apparao, aged ’ about 35 years, res§dent of Vinage -— $emra, Tah. JagdaEpun Distt. Bastar (Chhatt§sgarh) APPELLAN? Versus m. RESPONDENTS 1. Mohd. Asiam. son of Abdui Habeeb, resident 0f Mahadec: Gha€, Jagdaipuyf (Chhatt‘isgarh) 2. Smt. Vigayiaxmé Shrivasiav, wife of Shri Shiv Prasad Shrivastav, resident of Panarapara; Jagdaipur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) OWNER OF THE VEHICLE 3. The New indie lnsurance Company Umited, ‘mmugh : The Branch Manager? Jagdatpur Distt'. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) APPEAL UN§ER $E§T§GN 173 OFJLHE MOTQR VEHI¢L§ CT. 1%8. (Singie Bench: Hon‘b!e Mr. MK. Agarwal, J.) Present : ShriSP.Sahu,counselforiha appeiiant. None for the respvndents, thcugh served. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23'“ day a? Marcia, 2910} The instant appea! has been preferred by the appeiiant fcr seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 17-01 —2004 passed by Second Additional'Moror Accident Ckaims Tribunal Bastar at Jagdaipur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) in claim case No. 65/2002 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 2,000f— aiong with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of appiica’rron till its recovery has been awarded as compensation in faveur of the appenant‘ 2. The brief facts of the case according to appeilant are ihat, on 19042001, the appeliant met with an accident by offending s , @ vehiae Tata 407 bearing registration No. MP. 25/7219 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck and pursuant to said accident, the appeilant sustained grievous injuriea The appenant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000f— for the iniuries sustained by her on aocount of the said accident. 4. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed, and submissions made, awarded total amount of Rs. 2,000l- aiong with intevest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its recovery‘ as compensation infavour of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that aithough the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but looking to the fact that the appellant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingiy on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. 6. i have heard the teamed counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Raddy, reported in (2005) 12 Sim-189, 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 forthe 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 Ron- 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 the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunai. The 7. respondent-chimant is anowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribuna}, if it has not already been withdrawn," 8. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case cf Rajesh . Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reponed i (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : “1 1. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether {he Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. Cn what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certmcate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himseif, 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 Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais 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 Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & another vide order dated 31 5‘ 4— March, 2069, placing its reliance upon the dicta of $upreme 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. Thimpal Raddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju 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 admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case 10. ‘ Admittediy, the claimant in his own wisdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the accident and to prove the resultant ioss. In view of the dicta of the above 'referred cases, the injury reports, certificates produced, in th absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, n e certificates are neither admissibie in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. 1 1 . in a motor accident claim case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunai shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of each case. it is neither a bounty nor charity. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, i do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The appeal nied by the appeilant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Q" s , , SW- N. K. Agarwal Judge