HIGHCOURT OF_CHHATT!SGARH AT MISC. APPEAL (CS N0. 350 OF 2010 APPELLANT 1, CLASMANTS Anuj Das, aged 05 years, S/o Tapas Das (yinor), Through : natural father Tapas Das.. aged about 35 years, son of late R.B. Das, R/o Mana Camp, Post and P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsii and Dlstrtet Ralpur (C.G.). Versus Jitendra Kumar Dhruv, aged 25 years, S/o Suraj Ram Dhruv, (Driver) R/o Vlllage Sankara; P.S. Slnhava, Tahsii Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Naresh Kumar Bajaj, Son of T.R. Bajaj, R/o Mandl Chowk; Kurud, Tahsii Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Umited, Through : Dlvlsional IVIanager, DMsion Offlce No.1, Mandina tVlanjii, Kachahari Chovvk, Jai! Road, Ralpur (C.G.) ACT. 1994. Bench: Hon'bte Nr. N.K. AaarwaLJ.l Present : Shri S.C. Verma, counsei aSong wlth Shri Aditya Khare, counsel for the appeSSant. on ©ethday of Apri!, 2Q10) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appeilant for seeklng enhancement of compensatlon against the award dated 23-03-2009 passed by Second Addl. Motor Accident Cialms Tribunaj, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') in claim case No. 16/2008 whereby 'and whereunder an amount of Rs. 12,300/- aiong witb interest @ 6% percent per annum has been awarded as compensation in favour of the appeliant, from the date of' order. ...L. 2. The briet' facts of the case according to appellant are that, on 04-04-2006, the appeilant whjle coming from Shikshak Coiony, Kurud aiong with hIs friend, met vvith an accldent wlth Mahlndra Pjck-up bearing regjstratlon No. C.G. 05-A/8833 due to rash and negiigent driving by the driver of the offendjng vehicte (Mahindra Pick-up) and pursuant to accident, the appeEiant sustained grievous jnjuries. 3. The appefiant preferred an appllcatton before the Tnbunaj under Section 166 of the Motor VehlcSes Act, dalming compensation to the tune of Rs. 9;50,000/- for the injunes sustained by her on account of the sald accldent. 4. The Tribunaj, on a ctose scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submjssions made, awarded total amount of Rs. 12,300/- as compansation aiong wjth interest @ 6% percent per annum, from the date of order. 5. Learned counset for the appeliant would submlt that although the Doctor has not been examined but lookjng to the fact that the appellant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded by the Tribunai is shockingiy on iower side, this appeai may be aliowed and the compensation may be sujtably enhanced. 6. I have heard the iearned counsej appearing for the appeliant and perused the record. 7. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thinspa! reported in 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "S. After hearing iearned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of Sh@ High Court. We flnd that there was no justification for the Hlgh Court to rely on the disablljty certSficate Issued by Dr. .Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiilty to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error In overiooklng the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medicai certificate was rejected by the Tribunai for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physicai dlsabjjjty at 15 per cent on the basls of the .^.^i^ deposjtion of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hlgh Court erred sn disturblng the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we ailow this appeal, set aslde the Impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribuna!. The respondent-claimant is aflowed to wsthdraw the amount of compensation av/arded by the Tribunal, if it has not alraady been withdrawn.?? 8. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 308, reiterated the same vlew with the foilowing observations in para 11: "11. The certlficate in question in thls case was obtajned after two years. !t is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeiiant. On what basis, such a certlficate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certiflcate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himseif, it was not admlssibie in evidence. Whether the disablllty at 60% was calcuiated on the basis of the provisions of ths Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not Rnown. 11 is aiso not known as to whether he v^as competent to issue such a certificate. ft even does not appear that the contentlons raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunai as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceedecS on the materials brought on record by the parties. En absence of any contention having been ralsed in regard to the appjjcablllty of the Workmen's Compensatson Act whlch, In our oplnion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permjtted to be raised for the flrst time." 9. A Djvjsion Bench of this High Court in case of Pradsep Kiimar S&hu vs. Sampa Sahu & snofftervide order dated 31 March, 2009, piacjng its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above heid 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 Redldy (supra) and Rsjesh Kum&r affas Raju v. Yuclhvir Singh and another (sifpra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examlnation of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken Into conslderatson as substantive evidenc© for assessment ofthe compensation in the case.?? 10. Admjttediy, the claimant in his own wlsdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the accident and 4 © ^WIIIIIIIIUIUi- l»""ruil to prove the resultant ioss. !n view of the dicta of the above referred cases, the injury reports, certiflcates produced, in the absence of examjnation of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certlficates are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideratjon as substantive evjdence for enhancement of compensatjon In the case. 11. in a motor accident ciaim case, as per Section 168 of the E\4otor Vehictes Act, 1988, what js Important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/TribunaJ should be just and proper compensation jn the facts and circumstance of each case. ft is nelther a bounty nor charity. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 13. The appeai fijed by the appeliant for enhancement of the compensatlon is therefore ijable to be and is hereby djsmissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge