'^^•V^'^'^^-y\>^<,^'^.r^^-v^i^.Tj-\/\;->^-v'\./' . T- .v^^^^^^u^^^/^A^^n.-.rv^'t.^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS y.J ^y /.^' /.^ ^'^' / ^^.- ^ M.A.('GVNo.O^''^/2007 Dilip kumar,S/o Late Bhagirathi Kosle, aged about 32 years, R7o. Parsad Kramank- 8, Tihupara, Simga^, Tah.- Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Dhirendra Kumar, S/o. Prabhulal Mandle, aged about 29 year R/o Tihupara, Simga, Distt Raipur (CG) .....; (Driver) (_^2. Sirtaj Khqn, S/o. ArabKhan Musalman, aged about 38 years R/o Ward no 10, Simga Distt- Raipur (CG) ... ... .(Owner) V . ' 1-. :• •. ' / ! • . • . ' •' • . ,'1 • • '. .:. - .••. p—3.The Orriantal Insurance Co. Ltd. DO-2 Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Distt- Raipur (CG) Insurance Company APPBAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988. Appellant Claimant Respondents MIGtiCOURTOFCHHATTlSGARI+ATBIllASPUR M.A.CC^No.^ 38-7pf 2007 DilipKumar Versus : Dhirendra Kumar & Others APPEALUNDERSECTION1730FTHEMOTORVEH1CLES^ACT (SB: Hon'bleMr.N.K.Aaarwal.J.y '-^ 3. 4. Smt. RenuKochar,Adyc»catefortheappe|ant. Shri SydhirAgrawal,XyvQcatefbrresppndent N6. 3. 2., :,:: ORALORDER (Passed on 23rd day ofAugust, 2010) • . . . : . ' "• . •" -. With theconserrt of theparties,the matterisjieardfinaHy. The instant appeal has been preferred |>y the appeUant, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 28.06.2007', passeclbythe Ist ActelitionallVlotorAccJdent (^laims Tribunal Balaudabazar, Distt. Raipur (foF short 'the Tribunal') in claimca^No. 53/06. . IBFJe^fects ofthe case according to the appjellant are that, on 28.0^.2005, whilethe appellantwas travelinginJeep bearing cregjstration No. CG-04-ZD-7799, the driver j bf the said Jeep dashed; unknown Truck due to which the appellant sustained myltipl^injurjes. j The appellant preferred application before the Tribunal under Section 166ofthe MotorVehicles Act.claiming compensation to ttie tune bf Rs. 4,50,000/-^fo^ on accojjnt oftthe sajd accident. .•^ ^.^:..:.:, The Tribunal,^n|;a clc^e scrufiny of the e\4dence led^^^^^b^ parties, thsmaterial available on the record, and submjssions of the pa0es,ijE^^ed total amount ofi R^^^^ compensation in faAfioyr of<h& appellant. i lit^l^i^^^ll^F%^^^:^^®'^?'^ 8. Learned counsel for ttie appellant would submit that although theDoctorhasnotbeenexaminedinthisma^ the fact tliat the appellant sustained rrtultiple injuries, and amount awarded is shockingly on lower side,| this appeal may beallQwedandtheamountofcQmpensationbeenhanced. 1 have heard the leamed coynsel appearing fo and perused theaward jmpugned. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SR:TC v. P.'Thirupal Re€fe^reportedin(20Q5)12SCC-189,obsefvedinpara6as :lunder::'l;:;1',''11;1 l.l\';'':':'.'l''.lv.':1'- .':": l ::';:- ' ..•:':,.,'• "S.Afterhearing l^rnedTOunselfortheresponclent-Glaimant wlTomadeianattemptto^upporttheorderofljheHighCourt. VVefindthattherewasn6|u^^^ rely on the disabili^ certificate issued by j Dr. Sudhakar Redcfy anid enhance the eompensatibn by treiating the injury as permanent disability tp l3e 45 per cent, 1?he High Court eommitted Tgrpss error in overiooking the j fact that Dr. Sudhakar Redc^'s medic^ certJfJcate was^^^^^r^ Tribunal for rwn-^xamination hasdetermiried|h|i|jihy^ basisof1tiede(|GiitiG^^o^ and faircompensatK^.ST'heHigh the same and en^ we allow thi& appeal, set aside ^ restofeth&awar^of^^C^^ claimantisallow^dto^^^^w^ awarded by the Tribuna!, if it has notjalready been withdrawn." ! The Supreme Cpurt in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh KumaraliasRajuv.YydhvirSJnghan<lanother,reporteclin '(2008)7SCC305,reiteratedthesame'viewwJththefojlowing observations in para 11: j "11.The certificate in question^^^^i two yearc. Itisnotknpwn astowhethertheCiviI^^^S^ the hospital treated the appellant. Oh what basis, such a certificatewas issuedtwo^^^^^^ isTKrtknown.Theajuthorofthesaidcertificatehadn^^ examined.. Unless the aythor of the certificate examined hjmself, it-was not adrnissible iri^ ^ disability at 60% was calculated on the ba^ provjsionspftheWoi^mensCompensatioii^^ is nipt known. It is also not known as to whether^ competent tp issye ^uch a ce^ appearthattheeontenti9n®Nisedbef6reus|hadeitherbe^^ raised bef<ye the Tribunal orthe High Court: The Triby 7i%^t^T^tN':?-^ ^: as als^ the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. tn absence of any contention haymg been raised in regard to the appliGabilityoftheVVorkmen's<^bmpensat)6n|Actwhich,in our opinion, ex^acie has no application, the ^ame, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 9. A Division Bench ofthjs High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sanjpa Saftu & ahoffier vide order dated 31 March, 2009, placing its reltance upon the dicta of Supreme CQurtinthecasesreferredaboveheldJnparaSasun^er: "8. In view of th& above qyoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases ofA.ff; S^TC v. P. T^mya/ffecft^ Ra/esft Ni^ara/^ fsupra^ the certificate produeed befbre the Tiribunal in the absence of examihation oflhe Doctor issuingjthe^^^^ is nerther admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidenceforassessmentofthe 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. In view of the dicta of the above referredcases, the injury reports, certificates;produced,inthe absence of examination of the Doctor issuing jthe injury reports, certificates are neither^missible in evidence norcan be taken into consideration as substantiveevidence for enhancement of compensation in the case, Nejther multipl? 1 injury was fbund nor permanent tlisability certificatewas fited. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, Ij do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the TFJbunal. 12. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Noorderasto cosjts. Sahu Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge •^: