c^- K. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISG^RH AI BILASPUR M •A. N0. ?^^-/20Q3 @8i APPELLANTS Claiments s 1 -^y ^?%-/ ,.^^" ^"" VERSUS RESPONDENTS NON- -M^PLICANTS 3, / s 1. /" ^. &jmerun Bibi, W/o Mohammad Aleem, aged about 35 years, Occupation- House wife & Labourer. Shairun Bibi, W/o Aleem/ aged about 40 years, Occu- pation ~ House wife Sc Labourer, Saiyad Mohammad, S/o Moh\ Aleem, aged about 4 years ^ Minor through mother Ajmerun Bibi, W/o Mohgmmad Aleem, ( All are R/o Village Malga P.S. & Tah. Pratappur^ Distl Surguja C»G» ) Subodh Mandal, S/o Kailash Mandal^ aged about 28 years Qccupation Driver^ R/o, New Mines Bhatgawin^ P.S* Se Tahsil Surajpur^ Distt. Surguja (C»G») (DRIVER) Ravinder Singh, S/o Ry Bahadur Singh, a^ed 30 years, R/o Ring v^.<--i.w^ ^sp^.^^^rT ^ 8 2 S k» ^^ ^^-3. Ka^na, Kala, ^mbikapiir^P.S. & TahstT;.^mbikapur, Distt. Surguja C»G» (OWNER) The Orlental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager The oriental Insu- rance Company Ltd. Branch Office (Sadar Road) near Q.B.l. Ambikapur^ Distt/ Surguja C»G. (INSURER) APPEM, U/S 173 OF HOTOR VEHICLE ACT FOR THB ENHI^TCmENT OF THE AWARD w,' -'^^»\1\m^l ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Appellants/ Claimants Respondents/ Non-apDlicants M.A.No. 982 of 2003 Ajmerun Bibi & Others Versys Subodh Mandai & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT !SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. AaarwaS, J.i Present : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Advocate for appelfants. None for respondent No. 1. Shri V.P. Banjare, Advocate for respondent No. 2 appears on behalf of Smt. Hamida Siddique, Advocate. Shri Suryakant Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th day of February, 2010) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 22.08.2003, passed by the llird Additional Motor Acddent Claims Tribunal (FTC), Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') In claimcase No. 11/02. The brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that, on 07.03.2000, the appellants met with an accident with Jeep bearing registration No.MP-27/2274 due to whlch the appeliants sustained multiple injuries. The appeliants preferred an appiication before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, cteiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 5,00,0007- for the injuries sustained by them on account of the said accident. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material avaiiable on the record, and submlssions of the parties, awarded total amount of Rs. 10,QOO/- (Rs. 4000/- each for appellant No. 1 & 2, and Rs. 2000/- for appeliant No. 3) as compensation in favour ofthe appeliants. c 8. Learned counsel for the appeliant wouid submitthat although the Doctor has not beenexamined in this matter, but looking to the fact that the appeilants sustained multiple injuries, and amount awarded is shockingly on lower side, this appea! may be a!!owed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appeilant and perused the award impugned. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v.'P. Thisvpai Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "SAfter hearing iearned 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 disabl!ity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlookihg 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 enhancmg the compensation. Consequently, we aliow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award ofthe Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is aliowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by 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 followlng observations in para 11: "11 .The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treatedthe appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued frwo years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evldence. 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 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 c Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie 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. Sarupa Sahu & anofftervide order dated 31 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 abovequoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thinipal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar aHas Raju v. Yucfhvir Singh and another (supra), 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 in 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 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 case. The appellants have neither produced retevant documents relating to treatment nor have filed any injury report and disability certificate in support of their case. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The appeal file^i 'by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liabie to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwai Judge Kvr