! It ! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH Coram APPELLANT CLAIMANT : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (Ci No. 389 of 2006 Bipatram son of Narbada Lodhi, aged 55 years, Resident of village - Kheda, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.). RESPONDENTS Versus Phoolsai Gupta, S/o Samay Lal Gupta, aged 42 years, occupation- Driver, R/o village Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, Distrtet Bilaspur (C.G.). Harjinder Singh S/o Harvansh Singh, age 45 years, Occupation Business (Owner of vehicle) R/o village Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Korba Stadium, T.P. Nagar, P.S. and Tahsil & Distrkst Korte (C.G.). Naresh KumarW/o not known. Surjeet Singh S/o not known, aged65years, Both are through - Jeevan Bus Services, Pandri, Bus Stand, Raipur,' near Hora Complex, Ralpur (C.G.). Insurance Company, The Oriental Insurance Company, Jail Road, l^chahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). Miscellaneous Appeal under SecUon 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act Present: Shri Vimtesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the appeflant. ORDER (17th June, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, tearned counsel for the appellant !s heard on admission. 2. Appellant Bipatram, is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg (for short the Tribunal') vide awarctdated 29.07.2006, passed in Claim Case No.74/2005. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.10,20,000/- ctaimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim pet'rtion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.06.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,00,(XIO/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pet'rtion till the date of actual payment. 4. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only though the appellant/ clalmant sustained multipte serious injuries in the motor accident. 5. The Tribunal awarded Rs.72,000/- towards medfoat expenses; Rs.8,000/- towards attendant and speclal diet; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.15.000/- towards toss of ^-^^ ,^ ..•UMBJpijtiM ussq ApBSJ|e }ou SBI| tj u 'ieunqui sqt Aq pspjeMe uoitesuadiuoo jo lunoiue ai|i AABJpyim 01 p9Mo||B si (UBIUIBIO -luepuod^j 941 •|eunqui SUIIBIO ew p PJBMB 3111 9j0}saj pue jepjo pau6ndiut 94} spise }9S 'iesdde aqi MO||B 9M 'Affuanbesuoo 'uoiiBsuediuoo 9i<) Duioueyua pue siues 941 Duiqjn}sip ui psjje ynoo yBjH 341 'uoiiesusduuoo JIBJ pue }snf e pspJBMB pue ejiji/y •|/\|-» •JQ jo uoitisodep 8i|} io siseq 34} UO tUSO J8d Sl. }E AiiiiqBsip leoisAijd sy} psuiuusisp sei) |euncjjJi ayi 'joioop IBI)} ^o uoiieuiiuexe-uou jo^ leunqui aqi Aq psiostej SEM etsoiiivso leoipsiu s,Appsy JB>|eqpns 'JQ leq} p^ au^ Dui>|oo|jaAO U]JSB§8SOJD psniu.iiuo? pnooIJBJHSiU; 'iuao jad gt? aq 0} Auiiqesip lusueuuad se ^nfui 94} 6une84 Aq uoiiesueduioo eqi eouetjue pue Appsy .ie>|e4pns 'JQ Aq panssi ateoyiyao AtjiiqBsip sqt uo AJSJ <q ijnoo yBiH sy} jo.i uoneoyssnf ou SBAA sja^ leyi puy 9M 'ynoo 1)8)1-1 au^ ys japjo 94} yoddns oi }duianB UB spBiu oym }UBUjiB|o-}U8puodsaj siR jo,» lasunoo psujesi Buueaq jsyv •g,, :japunse gejed ui psAjesqo SBM li uiajeijm 'fiai. OOS Zt (SOOZ) "! psyodsj 'Appay |ednjjl|l -d 'SA Ollis "d'V to sseo 9i<» ui }jnoo xsdy 34} sjojsq uonejBpisuoo Mi dn siueo uoiiesuedtuoo syi ^o lueuussasse 9i|i joj aouepiAa aAjtueisqns se uodn p8j|3J sq ueo aieoyivso 94} F»nssi oi|MjOt30Q eqi BuiuiiuBxa tnoyiiM leunqui sqi sjojaq IUBUIIBIO eqt Aq psonpcud steoyiyso |BOipaiu sq} jsyieiiM uoi^senb 341 •/ •Atiiiqesip tusuBaijed Aue ui psunsej ssunfui asoyi (64} pe.i 941 pue luspiooe joioui 94} ui tueuiiBio flUBipddB ai<} Aq paureisns ussq 8AB4 0} pres saunfu! sqi so ajnieu 94} ysiiqBiss 01 |eunqyi ai|i ajojsq psuiiuexs SBM joioop ou 'tueuiiBio flUB||adde ai|) 0} UMOU)) tseq SUOSBSJ syt -ioj -g •}U9pjOOB JOIOUI 9l|l Ul Ullll Aq p8uie»snssaynfui ayt joj tUBijuiBio ayi o} uojiesuaduioo se papjBMe SBM -/000'00't'sy p uins |B}Ot B 'snqi pue sijiuoui xis p pouad e joj suiooui 8. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 30S, reiterated the same view with the following observations In para 11 : "11. The certificate in questlon in this case was obtained after two years. It is not taiown as to whether the C'lvit Surgeon of the hospital treated the appetlant. 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 admisstole in evkience. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated 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 ctoes not appear that the contentions rafsed before us had either been raised before the Tribunat 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 ralsed in regard to the applicabitlty of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no applicatton, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 9. in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir. Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificatesproduced by the appellant/ claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor'who had issued the said certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancemait of the compensation in the case. 10. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Subbu 11. The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, Is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. i-^SS- .1 Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge