HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B!LASPUR M.A. No. 704 OF 2006 Bhuvan Verma Versus Dilip Kumar Rajak & Others Respondents Nqn- applicants APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF‘THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. ‘ (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aqarwal, J.) Present : Shri Aditya Khare, Advocates for appellant. Shri SS Rajput, Advocate for respondent No. 1 & 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8‘“ day of January, 2010) ' Heard on M(C)P No. 930/06, appticationfor condonation of delay in tiling the appeal. 2. On due consideration, l am satisfied that the counsel for appellant has / 1 succeeded in explaining the delay caused in tiling this appeal. Accordingly M(C)P No. 930/06 isallowed and delay caused in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 31 08.2004, passed by the Vth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short 'Tribunal’) in claim case No. 14/04. The brief facts of the case according to the appellant are that on 12.06.2004, the Driver of Truck bearing registration. No. CG-O4/ZC- 0310, by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the appellant’s vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration No. CG-04-B-7053, due to which the appellant sustained injuries. 5. The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Ad, claiming compensation to the. tune of Rs. 4,49,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, \ s ‘ e awarded total amount of Rs. 11,3D3I- as compensation in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appeliant Wouid submit that although the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but looking to the fact that the appellant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded is shocking on iower side, this appeal may be aliowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appeiiant and perused the record The Supreme Court m case of A P SRTC v. P Thimpal Raddy, reported In (2005) 12 scc-189, observed In para 6 as under. "6 After hearing learned counsel for the respondent. claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court We fnd that there was no Justifcatton for the High Court to rely on the disability certifcate issued by Dr $udhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent The High Coutt 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. KM. Mitre 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- claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not already been withdrawn.” 10. 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 following observations in para 11: “1 1. The certificate in question in this case was obtained aner two years. lt is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant On what basis such a certrhcate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known The author of the said certidcate had not been examined Unless the author of the certiticate examined himself it was not ’ admissible in evidence. , Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known; lt 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 beenraised in regard to the applicability of the Workman s Compensation Act which in our opinion ex faoie has no application the same in our opinion cannot be permitted to be raised for the t‘rst time " \ ‘ 11. A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sampa Sahu & another vide order dated 31" March, 2009, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above held in para 8 s under: “8. ‘ in view of the above quoted dim of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Raddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Slngh and another (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunai in the absence of - examination of the Doctor issuing the certmcate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case.“ Admittedly, the claimant 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 absencefof 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. 14. 13. For thereasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ’The appeal med by the appeliant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. :\ N.K.Agarwai Judge sw— ‘ I