IN r S HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. -^ l^ /2005 APPELLANT <;LAIMANT RESPONDENTS N/ON-APJ^LICANTS ^ ^ ^^ ^' ^ y 4 /^ ^jr ,• ^?' S •Q' a?^J sigie Lavantri Bai, Wd/o. Shivprasad, Aged about 50 ycars, Occupation-Housewife, R/o. village Nareshpur, P.S. & 'j'ahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS 1. A Shivnarayari, S/o. Amarsay, Aged about 26 ycars, Occupation-' Driver, R/o. villagc Agrastpur, P.S. 6& Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). (DRIVER) ?« Jawaharlal Gupta, S/o. ].atc <^" Ra lal Gupta, Aged about 45 years, Occupation-Busincss, Owner of the vehicle, R/o. Main Road, Surajpur, P.S. & TahsU Syrajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). (OWNER) 3. N^fei'onal Jnsurance Company Lirnited, Through Dwision Manager, Korba, Wstt. Korba (C.G.). (JNSURER) APPEAL U/S._173_OF_M.V,ACT FORTHE ENHANCEMENT 1 311^1% ft-fl'* ^nn sn^i wnqr W<RW^i??%' ^^o- '2^T/oS- !T?PT, ®Tt!wi6,f^c'ii'My. ^.^MO.^JT/O^ an^r ^°w('yi^^t) Wiiw <ifCT sn^r SB: HQN. SHM JUSTICt; N.K. AOARWAL 19-11-2009 Shri Ashok Kumar phulda, Advocate, for the appellant. 2. Trafepih-wraSii fe€ttRFR; ^sifiiiTsn^l Shri Raj Awasthy, 4dv- for fhe respondent No. 3. Appellant/ claima^it isseekmg enhancement of the compensation awarded b^ award dated 25-11-2004 passed by II[rd Additiional Motor 4ccident Claims Tribiuial, Surajpur (PTC), Distt. Saiguja p^ssed in Claim Case No. 44/2002 preferred by the claiinatit under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereiijiafter referred to as the Act). 3. As against the coiqpensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/claima|it by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the M0tor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by appellant/dlaimant in the motor accident on 24- 10-2000, the Tribunal a^arded a total sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. | 4. Shri Ashok Kiimar Shiikla, leamed counsel for the appeUant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred m awardiag low compensation of Rs.1,000/- only, whereas the claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. I 1 :.H. ;'^^ ^?;Tf<?^?'I^=iT<nT<?—E;S/95—1} /2SC'ri—1.t,l(},003. 1-':[ 311^'W R-ii<* ^^t STT^T^^l^i l^ --il'4M<4, 0Tf!-'-l''i(S, rc<<t!yi< *(!HCTI%-?^ sn^i 'q^w (t'3^*"*'1) TOnwatoai^'ff doctor was examined b| t^i^f1^1 t?IH^f Tf f^^ '^affina^?! 5. Per contra, Shri A^asthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3| submits that in the facts and circumstances of fhe ca^e, fhe award passed ty the Tribunal is adequate and it does 4ot require aay erihancenient and fhe appeal deserves to be d|smissed as fhe doctor has not been exaiatned to prove injiuy) 6. For fhe reasons be^t kaown fhe appeHant / claimant no :fore the Tribunal to establish the nature of fhe tnjiiries ^aid to have been sustained by the claimant in fhe inotor ac<|;ident and fhe fact that those injuries resulted in any pennanei|it disability. 7. The question whefher fhe medical certificate produced by the claimant before ^he Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued (he certt&cate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessinent of fhe compensation caine up for consideration before the Apex Coiirt in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupal Reddy, reported m (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : "6. After hearing leamed connsel for the respondent-claimatiit who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justificatlon for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating -r~^i^S^^ ^!i.AS'<?q^,^i'{^—?;s/9S—} I /200^— i ,i)o,noy, ^' ,'^ r, e>Til'w'i^, [qtiw^< ^o <~1/ 3?1^9i ^ST Whft ^Il •sn'iTF'^WF R-ttW sn^H'T^^C^S^*^1') •WimT'gte attei ffae injiiry as The Hieh Court wiMpi w^i^ fs^ <?-!)<(! •^; SifHI! Sn^T perm^nent overiooking the fafct that medical certiflcate iv&s reiected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has deteraamed tfae phvblcal disabiHtv at 15 fer_cent on the basis of fhe d^position of Dr. K.M,, Mitra and awarded a iust add fair comoensation.__TheJ3igh Court erred in disttirbing ffae same and .ajihancmg the compeiisation. ttie 8. appeal, set aside the award ofthe Cl claimant is alloweB compensation awarjled already been wifhdi|awrL The Apex Court in WNI*1 disatnlity to be 45 per cent. committed gross error in Sudhakar Reddy's ConsequenUy, we atlow this impugned order and restore |aims Tribi.mal. The respondent- to wifhdraw the amount of by the Tribunal, tf it has not recent dictum ia the case of Rajesh Kumar allai Raju v. YujdhiBlr Stogh and another, reported in (2008} 7 SCC 305, jreiterated tfae same view with the foUowing observations in para 1 1 : "II. TIie certificajte in questicai in this case was obtained after two| years. It is not known as to whether fhe Civil ^urgeon of fhe hospital treated the appellant. On vfhat basis, such a certiBcate was issued two years after fhe accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate__had not been examtned. Unless the author of the_centfj5cate examined himself,! it was not adxnissible in evidcnce. Whefhei^ the cafculated on fhe ibasis disability at 60% was of the provisions of fhe Worlanen's Compensation Act or ofherwlse te not known. It is also .npt known as to whether he was ^K S.-'S ijysst-fWKlVW— ;:S/9S—4)/2u0>i—l.OD.OO". -j- F. 0-llWie. !c.i~tWM< sn^iw1?siw ^w sn^r'^^N? a?^?; •^% (y130^) iww^fCTan^i competent to issu^ not appear that tljie contentions raised before us had cither been r4ised before the Tribunal or the High Courfc The Tjlbunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceed^d on fhe materials brought on record by the parti| having been raised| 9. In fhe instant case,| the injiired remained inj how much amount she considering the facts particularly when the dq «hWiri41-<'WWJj <f iSVt "tfSR^R ^silma^ such a certificate. It even does :s. In absence of any contention in regard to the applicability of tfae Workmen's C4mpensation Act which, in our opinion, ex fa.de hjas no application, the same, in our opmion, cann^t be permitted to be raised for thefirsttime." !it is not proved as to how maay days hospital. It is also not proved as to spent in treatment and, fherefore, and circumstances of (he case, Ctor has not been examined to prove the injuiy and certi&cate^, an amount ofRs. 1,000/- has been awarded as compensatioti to the clalmant. 10. In viewr of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases ofA.P. SRTC[ v. P. Tfairupal Reddy (Siipra) and Rajesh Kumar aBas Raju v. Yudhvir Sin^i and another (Supra), fhe certt&cate produced before the Tribimal in the absence of exammation bf the Doctor issuing fhe certificate is neither admissible in levidence nor can be taken into consideration as substaiitive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case. /— v"^^ ^'•.^ ^n^r^ra^T^T'?-—f-'s/95—11/2GOs—! ,00,00>). ^h^as1 '=B~cr~ ; aSpvf J iBAiugy -^.^ ' VP8 ^v^t •passirosifl) 'uonBsnsd^ioo aq 01 siqBil ST 'ajojaiaLp 'i joj iiiBUitBp/lirenaddB sio Aq •leanquj, aqi Aq papjBMB joj adoos AUB pug ^ou op i 'SUOSB^I UORBSUS^mOO li^lfifaii^E^ ;]^*&Jt piSJ {? phlk l-lbUjbl* ^isoo 01 av jspjo o^[ 'gT Aqajaq si pire passimsip aip jo ^uauiaouBtpia Ipsig readdB aqj, •gi sip jo ^uamaouBqua Smogaioj aqi joj •TI B^ltt P»ji*IWBii ;tias£jiaL.)Aisfcl^ue .a&fc'&lWhlh AH-ll^ta! '&ltQ^&.'[ ^ aihiti iisyif ifeu tbll.bj Ife^K-