k IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} M. A. m N0. 4^1 OF 2010 •ff8^ APPELLANT : ^hrool Bibi Wife of Late Sobrati, ^-^ ^' CLAIMANT c,^.^> 'RESPONDENTS ^- 3. ^ aged about 45 years, Caste Musalman, Occupation Housewife (Bangle Seller), Resident of Village Narayanpur, PoliceStation Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS Deonarayan Dewangan Son of Bodhan Ram Dewangan, aged about 35 years, Caste Panika, Occupation Driver, Resident of Village Karwan, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). (Driver) Mohammed Nasiruddin Son of Mohammed Kail Miyan, Caste Musalman, aged about 48 years, Occupation Business (Vehicle Owner), Resident of Village Rasoolpur, Post Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). (Owner) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Office, Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). (Insurer) ww & ^;-:n^ m HIGHGOUjRI'Si^HHAT^ISGARHMlBIL^ Anbellant Claimant Respondents IVI.^,CNo.421of2Q1P Jahrool Bibi Versus Deonarayan Dewangan & Others APPEALUNDERBEC'TIONITSOF-FHEIVIOTCNRVEHICLESACT {SB: Nori'bleMr.N.K.Aaarw^,J.l Preserrf : ShriAshokShukla..Advbcatefoj'appellaht. 1. 4. ^ORAl-'ORDER^^-J.i.'''.^ (Passedon19thdayofApril»^ Heard onadmission. r^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The instant appeal;has been preferred byjthe appellant, se^ enMancement of compensatiQn again 17.^2.2009, passedbythelindAdditional^otorAccidentClaims Tribunal (FTC^Surajpur, Distt; Surguja (forshc»rt'th&^^ ^claim^ase^o.f23/09.V^:':'^;.:'''^ The bneffactsoftheGaseacGordih^^ 23.0&.2008, the appiellant met with an {acciden^ bearing registration No. CG-15/B-2927, du^towhichtheappellarit sustainedtlmu;ltip!e;injunes,.;,^,^,'.,::.,^ '. -[.:;::. :,.{'.'•'. •• ..•^:'^^^''.;..:^J':1,,':. .:..', The appellant prefeired arifapplication b^re the TO Section 1^6 ofthe;MQt<3r^ehicles^ the tune of Rs I^OO.OOO/-^ f^ accouhtofthesaidaccident.j Jhe Tribunal, on a elose scrotiny of IMe^ e^^^ partjes, the materjatavailableontherec6rd^ tile parties, awarded tot^^^^^^ a compensatipn infavouFQfltieappellant.l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Learned counsel f^rtheapp^ljant^ Dpcto^hasnotbeenexamjnedinthismatter,^ fact that the lappellaht sustajned multJRle injyries, and^il^ :E-41-_._._ lli'; I^H: awarded isshockinglyon lower side, thisappeal may^be aliQwed^ andthe^mount<)fcompensati6nbeenha^ 6. I have hearc^ the learned ©ounselappearin^ for the ap^ellant and perusedtheawarGlimpygned, 7. TheSupi^meCoyrtinGaseofA.P.SR^ reportedin<2005Y12SCC-189,6bservedin|3ara6asunder: '; 1:.-..^'''-':.'/ •..: ••'.:',-':/..\';;-- "6./^r heanng^ learned eoun^ who made^an^emp^tosuppQrt^^ Wefind1:hatth6rewa&n6justificatio pnthedisabiljtycertifiGateissuedbyDr.SudhakarR^ddyanc! enhancethecpmpensationt^tFeatingth^^ disabiljlytobe 45 per<;ent. errOT m dverlooking Ihe l^et th^^^^ m^ical certific^ was reje(^d\l^ examinatidn ctfthat doctor. The Tribuhal tiaaxietermi physicaldisabiljty^^SperGentonthe QfDr.K.M.Mitraanda^ ^he High Court erred in disturbihg fh&sa^ th@ <»mpensa1^n, Consequentl^^ asidethe impygnecl6rderandrest6re1:hea|^rdoflh^ Tribunal. The responclent-claiman^is allo^d towithdr^ ampuntofcomperisationawardedbytheTribunal,ifithasnot alreadybeen withdrawn," 1 8/ The Sypreme CQurt jn a recent alias Raiu y.YudhYirSingh anri anpther, reported in SCG 305, reiterated the same viewj with the^^^^^^^fo observation&in para 11; ! "11.The certificate in question in thiscasejwa^o twoyears.ltisnotknc^ the hospital^ t^ certificatewas issued two years^^a^ js ribt knbwn. The authorofthe Said^ertificat^ examiried^ Uhless ^he author of^^^^ himself, it was not admissible ift^^^^^^^ di8abilityat60%wascalculatedpnthebasisofth^provj^^ of the VVorkmen's ^ otherwise is not known. ltisalsonotknownas:tow^ t6 issue sych a Gertificate. It eyen doesriotappearthatthe contehtipnsraisedbeforeushadeitherbe^nrajsedbelbrethe Tribunal pr the High Court. The Tribu^^ Court, therefore, proc^ded on :the m^er^ recoixl by the partjes. In absen^ been raised in regarxl to the applicabU C«)mpensati6n Act which, in our opinio application,thesame,inourppinion,cannotbep beraisedforthefirsttim 9. A Division Bench of this High Court in case of P/acfeep Kiwnar 5aht/v«.SanipaSa^&ano(ftervid^ 2009, plaeing itsrelianGe ypon the dNa^^^^^^^^^ casesreferred abpvehelclin paraSasunder: "S.lriviewoftheabovequoteddictaoftheApexCourtin the casesof4.^ S^TCv. B 7^"^^^^^ /?a^sh Kiw)^ a^ fi^ v. Yudfwir Singh and ahother ^upra^, the eertificate^ produced before the Triteunal absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admlssible in evidence nor icah be taken into consicleration as substantive evidence foir assessment of the compensation irrthe case." 10. Admittedly, the claimant in his own wiscjom did not examine DOctortoprovetheinjurysustainedinthejacGidentandl the resultant loss. InviewofthedictaoftheaboverefeFredcases, the injury reports, certificates producedi in the^^^^ ^ examination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certifjcates are nejther admissible in evidence nor can be taken jnto consideration as substantive evidence jfor enhancement of compensation in thecase. l 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, Ij do not find any scope forenhancementofthecdmpenSationawarjdedbytheTribuna!; 12. The appeal filed by the appellant forj enhancem^^^^^^ cOmpensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to c6sts, Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge