13 s‘i’ 't . H w , I\Ja)l-\ ’§? f . . " g) I § ; iv r- . " E, § > ‘ z ‘ C?/\»/ 4/ i} 1‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPURICE.) MisceifagweaugAppeai Na“L—%3 273g 200 ., msmn . n Bemh Misceiianeoug gggneai undergfsection 173 Of The Mater Vehide Act 1988 a H to“; FEE? ‘?o v 7 i ; $WUC§NTS: / 1) Shiva Kumr Dhwar 5/0. Bhagirath DhWar /CLAIMANT8 aged about 4Q yrs. Rhi, Vi”. & Past. Budara, RD. Khamra, Thana— Kharora, Distt. ~ Ramur(C.G,} VERSUS RESPONDENT‘S : Santogh'Kumar Mariikpmi (ariver) ,Nawwpumms $10. {Mama Manikpuri, i I R19. WE. & Pas: Gmce, Lavan Near Mahamaya L‘howk, Thana iiiamo! Digti— Raipur {£16.} Manigh Kaie SIQ. ManM Rao Kaie Rm. m3. Lavan, Thana- Kasml, . s Dim} Raipur (C43,) Q5 t. . ‘. c§é§w / ’ The New India Insurarice Cammmv Ltd. Through Divisignai Manager, The New India .. 5kg" e 3 /.-’ Insurance Cornnany Ltd. antchhéri Chgwk, Jail Rnad, Raipur {(1:32) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice LM. Quddusi & Hon’ble Shri Ju§tice N. K. Agarwal. resent ‘g ‘Shri Arjun Singroul, Advocate forthe appellant. Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed‘cn 215‘ day of Saptember, 2910) Per : I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the award dated 03.02.2003, passed by the lst Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ralpur .(for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 111/02, dismissing the claim petition tiled by the ‘ appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the appellant are that, on 14.03.2002, while the appellant was traveling in Jeep bearing registration No. MKC-7991, the driver of Mini‘ Bus bearing registration No. MP-23—D/8745, dashed the said Jeep due to which the appellant sustained multiple injuries. The appellant preferred application before therTrlbunaI under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/- for the injuries sustained by him ‘ on account of the saidaccldent. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, dismissed the claim petition tiled by the appellant. :x :. P M.A. No. 858 of 2003 APPELLANT Shive Kumar Dhivar Claimant Versus RESPONDENTS : Santosh Kumar Manikpuri Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but iooking to the fact that the appellant sustained multiple injuries, and amount awarded is shockingly on lower side, this appeal'may be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the award impugned. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Raddy, reported in (2005) 12 scc-189, observed in para 6 as unden V "6.After hearing leamed counsel for the respondent-claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the‘ High Court. We find thaLthere was no justification 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 this 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 Court in a recent dictum in case of 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: "1 1 .The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. 0n what basis, such a certiticate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate 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 Workr‘nen’s Compensation Act or otherwise 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 before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal l t . as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials 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 hrst time." e A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu & another vide order dated 315* Sahu vs. Sampa Sahu :March, 2009, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme i 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. Thirupal Reddy (supra) and u *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 tor assessment of the compensation in the case.” 10. Admittedly, the claimants 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 6f the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for grant of compensation in the case. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal. , 12. The appeal filed by the appellant is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/— Sdl— I.M. QUDDUSI \i N. Kn Aga‘wa‘ Judge j Judge