.p-l^ /I1"/ ( i^i^L.u'^'LiLi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.t M.A. (C) No. k ^s -^' APPELLANT .EtAlMENT RESPONDENT: NON-APPLICANT 1. ^' Pramod Chandrakar, S/o Late B. P. Chandrakar, Aged about 33 yrs., R/o Behind of Ayurvedik College Near of Gayatri Hospital Rohinipuram, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Prem Singh, S/o Kashmira Singh Panjabi aged about 30 yrs., R/o Khursipar Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Karam Singh, S/o Surendra Singh, R/o Kohaka Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal underSection 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. 1994 x <\l cpfe HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Appellant Claimant Respondents M.A.fONo. 645 of 2008 Pramod Chandrakar Versus Prem Singh & Others 'x ~ APPEA1. UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri A.L. Singroul, Advocate for the appellant. None for respohdent No. 1 & 2. Shri GVK Rao, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24 day of June,2010) Heard on IA No. 1 , application for condonation of delay. 1. On due consideration, l am satisfied that the counsel for appellant is succeeded in explaining the delay caused in filing the appeal. Accordingly IA No. 1 is allowed and delay is accordingly condoned. 2. Heard on admission. 3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 15.09.2006, passed by the Xlth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 94/04. 4. Brief facts of the case according to the appellant are that, on 10.01.2004, while the appellant was traveling in Tata Sumo bearing registration No. CG-04-ZD-0450, the driver of Truck bearing registration No. CG-07-ZC-0432 dashed the said Sumo due to which the appellant sustained multiple injuries. 5. The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunat under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,50,0007- for the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident. ~\ 6. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, awarded total amount of Rs. 31,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but looking 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. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the award impugned. 9. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "S.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 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 ofcompensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 10. 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 : "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 ofthe 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 V \ .\ Sahy 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." 11. A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & another vide order dated 31 March, 2009, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above held in para 8 as under: "8. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Couri: in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Rafu 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." 12. Admittedly, the claimant in his own wisdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the accident and to prove the resultant loss. In view of the dicta of the above referred cases, the injury reports, certificates produced, in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. Neither multiple injury was found nor permanent disability certificate was filed. 13. For the reasons meritioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge