'^ ^^ ^ INTHEHIGHCOURT-OFJUDICATURBATBlt.ASPUR tCHHATTISGARHV IVIiscellaneous.ApDeai.fO.No ^/2007 APPELLANT ILAIMANT RESPONDENTS OWNER DRIVER ^ %. ^- •' .^, :v? "\ "R a ni P ra sa d, ag ed ab o u t 22 years, S/o. S h ri Roop Sa i, Caste Choudhary, jR/o. Village Majhagavan, JP. S. Pendra, Tahsil Pendralroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^<Banti @ Shravan Kumar Jalan, aged about 30j yeaFS, Caste Agrawal S/o.'.Praihlad Rai Jalan, R/o. Vi|lage Pendra, Tahsil ^endraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) >^Dhanraj Singh, aged about 22 years, Caste Gond, S/o. Samal Singh R/0. Villae Latkonikala, Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bjlaspur (C.G.) 3^M( 3^Mohan Lal, aged about 40 years, Caste Kesri (Gupta), S/o. Raghunath Prasad, R/0. Pendra, Tahsil Pendrarbad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) '\ IVIEMOOFAPPEALUNDERSECTION173 OF THE CODEOFMOTORVEHICLEACT.1988 '2P HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS M.A.(C)No. 353 of 2007 Ram Prasad Versus Bantl @ Shravan Kumar Jalan & others. Miscellaneous appeal under S<6ction173 of the Motor VehidesAct.1988 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwat. J.) Present : Mr. Dhirendra Mishra, counsel for the appeilant. None for respondente No. 1 & 2. Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (01.12.2011) 1. Instant appeai has been filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation in the award dated 14.11.2006 passed by Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.06/2006 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 2. As agaJnstthecompensationofRs.1,70,000/-claimedbythe appellant/cjaimant by filing application under Section 166 bf the Motor Vehicles Act on account of injuries sustained by him in the acddent dated 10.11.2003 by Truck bearing registration No. CG-10, ZB-1953, iearned Tribunai has awarded compensation of Rs.3,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of application till its payment holding respondents No. 1 and 2 l.e. owner and driver of the offendlng vehicle are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. ^ '< 3. Learned TribUnal, on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that' ^e accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truek bearing registration No. CG-10,ZB-1953 by jts driver i.e. respondent No.2 i.e Dhanraj Singh; awarded aforesaid :l^:; 4.... \-' •te;. -^ amount of compensatjon to the appeiiant/ciaimant against the respondents No. 1 & 2. 4. Shri Dhirendra Mishra, iearned counsel appearing for the appeilant would submit: although the appeljant has not examined the doctor to prove the injuries sustained by him in the accident, however, the learned Tribunal has fallen in error in awarding low amount of compensation. 5. Shri Abhijeet Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 supported the award jmpugnedand submitted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation and does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsei for the parties and perused the material available on record jncluding impugned award. 7. 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: "SAfter 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 disabiljty to be45 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-daimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 8. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 3Q|5, reiterated the same view with the fojlowing observations in par^ 11 : "11 .Th^ certificate in question in this case was obteined. 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 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 provisjons of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is a!so 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 Actwhich, in our opinion, ex fade has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 9. A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sanspa Sahu & anotfeer vide order dated 31st 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 ofxthe Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (suprs), 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." 10. Admittedly, the daimant ln 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 ofexamination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are ne'rther admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. 11. For the reasons mentjoned hereinabove, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ' ^ ?• ' 12. The appteal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation i^.therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No ^ order as to costs, Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge 'l^