^ w M-y A -.-^f ^y^' 9^y ^ ''^y •'. ;;:' • ^";:'::' ;:../ .. :. ^ . ' :.; IN TH E HIGM COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURCC.G) MISCELLANEOUSARPEALNO. "•2006 APPELLANTS ^fLAIMENTS. B?SPON0ENTS /Non-Applicants jSadhuram Durga, S/o Late Shatrughan ^Durga, Aged about 42 yrs., R/o NagarNigam Colony, Sweeper Colony, Amapara,Raipur, Distt.-Raipur(C;G.) Versus I ^) c. Gokul Baghel @ Vikas Baghel, S/o Shri l.axman Baghel, R/o Kalibadi Raipur, Distt.—Raipur(C.G.) 2),? Ramesh Kumars^chdeo, S/o Shri Nai|ayan Das Sachdeo R/o'Kalibadi Chowk Raipur, Distt. -Raipur (C.G.) 3) ^-^Branch Manager, United India Insuran^e Co, td. Krishna Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal under/sectionl73MotorVehicteAct 1988 -kl 1 /' <t"S- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BllLASPUR M.A.No. 547 of2006 APPELLANT Sadhuram Durga VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Gokul Baghel & others fAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) CSB: Hoh'Me Mr. N.K. Aearwal. J.) fi\ Present : Shri SC Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Dashralfa Gupta, Advocate for respondentNo. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 19.04.2011) / 1. Heard on M(C)P No. 696/06, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, the grouads mentioned in the application, I am satisfied that the appeBaat has succceded in e'!q?laining the cause of delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the application is allowed and the delay caused in filing the appeal is hereby coadoned. 3. The instaat appeal has been preferred by the appellant, seeking enhancement of compensation against Ihe award dated ^,. 17.102005, passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 28/05. 57 't'^ ^ 4. Brief facts of the caseaccording to the ap^ellant are : on 11.032004, when the appellant was retuming from Dhamtari by Sumo bearing registration No. CG-04-T-1079, met with an accident wilft Truck as a result ofwhich the appellant sustained multiple injuries. 5. The appellant preferred application before the Tribunal under Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune ofRs. 4,20,000/- for the injuries sustaiaed by him on account ofthe said accident. 6. The Tribunal, on a close scnrtmy of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, awarded total amount of Rs.22,000/- as eompensation in favour ofthe appellant. 7. Leamed counsel for the appellant would submit that although the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but looking to the fact that Ae appellaht sustained multiple injuries, and amount awarded is shockingly on lower side, this appeal may be allowed aad theamount ofcompensation be enhanced. 8. I have heard tiie leamed counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the award impugned. •^..^ . . 9. The Supreme Court in case ofAP. SKTC v. P. 1'hirupal RedSy, reported in 0005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: 1'-^ •/ Y'i, "6.After hearing leamed counsel for the respon^eirt-claimant who made an attempt to support the order oftheHi^iCourt. We find that there was no justification for the Hig}i Court to rely on tiie disability certificafe issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as pamanent disabUity to be 45 per ceut. The Hi^i Court committed gross em>r in overlooking tfae fact that Dr. SudhakarReddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Trilmnal for non-exammation ofthat doctxM-. The Tribunal has detennined the physieal disability at 15 per cent on tiie basis ofthe deposition ofDr. K.M. Mitra and awarded ajust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same md enhancing tiie compensation. Caasequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugied wder and restore the award of Ifae Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to wifhdrawtiie amoimt ofcompensation awarded by Ifae Tribunal, ifit has not already been wifcdrawn." The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in caseofRajesh Kumar s i aBas Raju v. Yudhvir Sin^i and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11: "ll.The certificate in question in tUs case was obtained sSter two yeais. It is not known as to wheflier the Civil Surgeoa of the hospital treated flie ajyellaHt. On •what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after llie accident took plaee is not known. The author ofthe said certificate had not been exanuned. Unless the author of the certiflcate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis ofthe provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whetfaer he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised befwe us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the Hig^i Court. The Tribunal as also the Hi^i Court, therefore, proeeeded on the materials brou^rt on record by the parties. In absaice ofany c<wrtention having been raised in regard to the applicability ofthe Workmea's Compensation Act wfaich, in our opinion, ex &eie has no ~i -. - application, tfae same, in our opinion, caanot be pennitted to • be raised for the first time." 11. A Division Bench oftiiis High Court in case of Prade^ Kunmr Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & another vide order dated 31 March, :/ •f^ t^:^^iL':^:. ^u^?''"sss^\ §. g, ^''iig.ss^ | *1> / ^ v^ 2009, placing its reliaoce upon the dicta of Su^reme Court ia the cases refen-ed above held in para 8 as under: "8. In view oftfae above quoted dicta ofthe Apex Court in the cases ofAP. SBTC v. P. Tha-upal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kwnar alias Saju v. Ywdhvir Smyh and another (supra), tfae catificate produeed before ihe Tritonal in the absence ofexaaiination offhe Doctor issuiag tiie certtfieate is neitfaer admissible in evidence nor caa be tAen into consideration as substaative evidence for assessment of the eompensation intiie case." 12. Admittedly, the claimants in his own wisdom did aot examine Doctor to prove the injury sustamed in tiie accident and to prove the resultant loss. In view oflhe dictaofthe above referred f i cases, the injury reports,certificates produeed, in Ifae absence of exammation ofthe Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are neither admissible iri evidence nor can be tAen into consideration as substentive evideace for enhancement of compensation in the case. Neither multiple mjuiy was found nor permanent disabUity certifieate was filed. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The appeal filed by the appellants for enhaneement of the compensation is therefor®liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- "-> N.K. AgrawaS p Judge [ Sahu d^.i Ifril