^ ^ ...]"•) ^^ ^\ •^^•' ( ^ 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.} ~^~ M.A. (C) No._ 72007 APPELLANT FLAIMENT RESPONDENT: NRP^APPLICANT 2. ^Oipak Kumar Ranglani, S/o Om Prasad Ranglani, Aged about 19 yrs., R/o Mana Basti, P.S. Mana Camp, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS " Vikas Thakur, S/o Ramswarup Thakur, R/o House No. 44, Dubey Colony Mowa, Raipur (C.G.) Vinod KumarThakur, S/o Dr. R. N. Thakur, R/o House no. 44, Dubey Colony Mowa, Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. 1994 ^ ^-^- h ^^•-"^sa^ 1\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BJLASPUR MISC. APPEALNO. 63 OF 2007 APPELLANT lcSaimantl RESPONDENTS NON- APPLICANTS DSpak Kumar Ranglanj Versus Vikas Thakur and another. APPEAL UNDER SECT10N 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHtCLE ACT. 1888. (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Shri S.C. Verma, counsel with Shri Aditya Khare, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents, though served. Present ORALORDER (Passed on 22nd day ofJsnuary, 2010) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appetlant for seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 28-09-2006 passed by XIIth Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(F.T.C) Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 77/2006 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 29.419/- along with interest @ 6% percent per annum has been awarded as compensation in favour ofthe appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case according to appelSant are that, on 14-11-2003 at 11.00 A.M., while the appellant was sitting on his motorcycle, respondent No.1 by drivjng hls Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.04-CA/7166 rashly and negljgently dashed the appeliant's vehicle and pursuant to said accident sustained grievous injuries. 3. The appeilant preferred an application before the Tribuna! under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, cfaimlng compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her on account of the sald accident. ^c^SSll^ %K vy,v 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submjssions ofthe parties, awarded total amount of Rs. 29,419/- as compensation in favour ofthe appeilant. 5. Learned counsei for the appellant would submit that although the Doctor has not been examined In this matter, but looking to the fact that the appeliant sustained grievous jnjury, and amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingty on lower sjde, this appeal may be atlowed and the compensation be enhanced. 6. I have heard the iearned counsel appearing for the appetiant and perused the record. 7. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Jhinipal Reddy, reported in (200S) 12 SCC-189, observed In para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court. We find that there was no justiflcation for the High Court to rely on the djsabijify certlficate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabJlity to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overiooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has cieterminedl the physical disabiljty at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awardect 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, jf it has not atready been withdrawn." 8. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported jn (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same viewwith the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after fcwo years. !t js not known as to whether the CMf Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the o9 accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Untess the author of the certiftcate examined himself, it wa©not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calcuiated 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 th@ Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded qn 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 appljcation, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 9. A Djvision Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sampa Sahu & another vide order dated 31st March, 2009, pladng 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 Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thfrupal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvlr Singh and anottier (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal "in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admissibJe in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as ;substantiv©evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case." 10. Admittedly, the claimant in his own wisdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the accident and to prove the resujtant ioss. In view of the dicta of the above referred cases, the injury reports, certjficates produced, in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certifjcatesare neither admissjble in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evjdence for enhancement of compensation in the case. 11. In a motor accident claim case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what Js important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should 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 herejnabove, j do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismjssed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Kvr l^ F-..-,.^