1.^! A' k'ss ^^^" BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPVR M.A.C. No. '^ /200T- ADDeIlant : Smt. Ranjna Chandrakar, Aged about 24 years, W/o-Pramod- Chandrakar, Occupation- Knitting and Stitching, R/o.-Behinde Ayurvedik College, Near Gayatri Hospital, Rohnipuram, Raipur, Tahsil and DistrictRaipur(C.G.) VERSUS Respondents: 1. Prem Singh, Aged about 30 years S/o-Kashmira Singh Panjabi, Occupation -TmckDriver, R/o-Khursipar Bhilai, / ^^ Tahsil and District Durg(C.G.) ^- ^\: 1 ^- ^s^° >^' 2. Karam Singh, S/o. Surendra Singh .••••^>^w ^'^.^^' \^~ ^ ^ (, Occupation-Tmck Owner, R/o-Kohka Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg(C.G.) 3. TheNewIndia Iiisurance Co,Ltd. Branch Office-Najidini road, Bhilai, Through-Divisional Manager, Division Office-Katchheri Chowk, Jail road, Raipur(C.G.) niEMORANDAM OF APPEAL U/S.-173 OF THE M.V.ACT.1988.FOR ENHANCEMENT OF AWARD -5^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fC) No. 539 of 2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Smt. Ranjana Chandrakar Versus Prem Singh and others. SB:- Hon.^hriJT.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT:- Shri Basant Kaiwartya, counsel for the appellant. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sareena Khan for respondent No.3. QRALAWARD (22.11.2011) This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the 11th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal?) in claim case No. 95/2004 vide award dated 26.03.2007. 2. As against compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- claimed by the appellant by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 10.01.2004, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. f^ 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.C.G.07-ZC/0432 by its driver - Prem Singh, respondent No.l; appellant sustained injuries in the said accident; respondent No.S/the New India Assurance Company Limited not liable for payment of compensation as it has established violation of policy conditions: assessed and awarded Rs.5,000/- as conipensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 4. Shri Basant Kaiwartya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: the Tribunal has erred in awarding low amount of compensation of Rs.5,000/- only for the injuries sustained by the appellant, which deserves to be suitably enhanced. 5. On the other hand, Shri Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Sareena Khan, appearing for respondents No.3 supported the award and submitted: in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and the appeal deserves to be dismissed as no doctor has been exainined to prove injuries. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Tribunal including the award impugned. 7. True, the appellant sustained injuries in the motor accident on 10.01.2004 but for the reasons best known to the appellant / claimant no doctor was exarained before the Tribunal to evStablish the number and nature of injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 8. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before fhe Tribunal 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 v. 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 attenipt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there 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 Reddv's medical certificate was rei'ected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disabilitv at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbins 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.?? 9. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following obseryations in para 1 1 : "11. 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. On what basis, such a certificate 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 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 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 first time." •f t'& j "'^ ^ •^, ^...././ y',^' 10. In the instant case, a bare perusal of iinpugned award, it is crystal clear: the claimant could neither produce any such docuraent relating to treatraent nor could prove disability resulting into injuries sustained by her in the motor accident; the injuries sustained by the appellant are of simple in nature. It is also not proved as to how many days the appellant remained in hospital and how much amount she spent in treatment and, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the doctor has not been examined to prove the injuries sustained by her, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the clairaant. 11. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy and Rajesh Kum.ar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), in the absence of examination of the Doctor proving the injuries is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the corapensation in the case. 12. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the appellant, in the light of the fact that no doctor was examined by the appellant to prove the number and nature of injuries and the resultant loss, in f? 'fc^. ,^. 1 B ''^"-<;^^ 1 6 ,?' my opinion, there is no scope for enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. For the foregoing, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge