s V a a :.r._ ‘ ‘ W‘m ‘cxuw ‘ g _ ”, 'w > / ’ (Lu JiV “H ‘ Mu, V) ”HUM x k ‘ z IN THE HIGH COURT OFVJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGA 'M.A.No. (jg 2D / 2004. /Bihari Das Manikpuri s/p shri' x ‘ v \ ‘ §APPELLANT : Z Tingalu Das Manikpuri aged 35 years 3» R/o Bhaoradih Thana Sipat Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS aéspomEms l: ,1; Ram $umiran Chandra s/o s§ri Jailal ‘ u - Ehandra R/G Village Bitakula Thana sipat Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ( Driver Mini Bus A/o CG-ZA/0372) 2. Jailal Chandra S/o not knOwn / R/o Village.lBitakula Thana Siptt Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) {Ownar o£ Minibus No. CG—zA/o37-2) 3. The United India Insurance co.Ltd. Through : Branch Manager vyaparBihar Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) ( Insuranced Minibus No.CG—ZA/0372) 4 Rajendra Singh' S/o Shri Hari Sizigh Aged about 39 years R/oxgvillage Khaira Thana Sipat Distt. Bilaspur ( Driver Matador No. 709 CG—1ozB/1408) ,‘ ‘wx / 5. Halpal singh s/o hot known \ Dayai’ Band Bilaspur c,G.e 6., The Oriental Insurance C‘o.Ltd. .( R/o Through : Branch Manager C.G. High Court Road, Bilaspur C. G.H Contdtu-2000« "I: 1.‘ z A > ‘ i ‘ ‘ ( i 2 ¢ z x 2* MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE -2- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 1320 OF 2004 C9 (Passed on 19 day of January, 2010) Th nstant apeal has been preferred by the appellan seeg enancement of compensan agst t award dated 27.082004, passed by the Xth Adna Moor Acent ls Triunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘Trlbunal’) in claim case No. 34/04. The brie fact of the ca accordingto the appellant are that, 21 1 .02, while the appellant ws traveling in the Mini Bus bearng reiration N CGZA-O37 the Driver of Matador bearing reaon C 40 by dg the vele rashly and nently dashed the ve n wh the appent was traveg, d to wh the appellant ssted s. T appellt preferred an application befre the ‘fribunal under Sction 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming copenstion to th tune of Rs. 3,10,000/- for the injes sustained by him on acount of the said accide. Te Tribunal on a close scrtiny of the evidence led by the partie th mateal avable on the record and subns of the pr aarded total a‘unt of R 1 00l- as compensan n fo of t appellan Larned counsel or t appellant would su at althouh the Dctor has not been exaned t matter, but loong to the fact tt the appellant sustaied grievous injury, and amount awarded ORAL ORDER ‘“ e I p t kin T tio am he ; ditiol t crd Calm b f s se on 2 a i ést o 2 gistrti No G 10 ZB 18 rivm hic eglig hicle I hic lla lin ue hic uain injurie he an o e ma e uri c nt h u s e ri ail mtssro aties w mo s 0 5 tio i avur he t V ‘ _, e f he bmit th g o mi in his ki ha n is shocking on lower side, this appeal may be aiiowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. I ha‘ve heard the learned counsel appearing for the appeliant and perused the record. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "6. 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 certmcate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injuryas permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The'High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. $udhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was rejected by the l Tribunalfor 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 enhancmg the compensation Consequently. we allow j this appeal set asrde the rmpugned order and restore the l award of the Claims Tribunal The respondent-claimant rs l allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by l the Tribunal. if it has not already been withdrawn." 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 para11: "‘11. The certincate in question in this case was obtained after two years. lt 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. lt is also not known as to whether he was competent l to issue such a certificate. lt 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 s Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties ln absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmens l Compensation Act which In our opinion. ex facre has no I application the same In our opinion cannot be permitted to l be raised for the frst time A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sampa Sahu & another vide order dated 31“ March, 2009, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the casés referred above held in para 8 as under: 1 “8. in view o; the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Raddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another. (Supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doctor iseuing the certificate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case." 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. ln 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 casie. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l donot find any scope for’enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 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. l l a r l I 1 z l 'l "Sd/— - .1 N. K. Agarwal Judge