:i!ig9at®a ^ ^" ^ "'s ?•fa"; •'&"s^'S'^ 5UB3SIS S s^lfi r*i ^rfi 349 OF 2003 Ku, Renu Sharma, Aged aooui: ^ -% V"-^ Ft/r:. f^'- "kh-s^h Ch.-;"!"*,-;. 10 1 aS., L/^0i OUUi ;Ci5?i! O; s^l Ul^, Represented herebv QUStQIBH s-K^'^f-." Q! i^.^-'-'s'!' 'Stti^E OU^H^SSt Sharma. Rio Udhvoa Nacian. ^-i.oi-.^t ta-. Q /~\ )^;.- /s—.m Pt ;,...*,i,;^ •HciHpun; ^S.^J. ^iTgSOH; Ui^riCl Ralpur (C.G.) 1. Jaiandhar Tandl, S/o Navsji Tandi, R/o Trimurty Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, • RalDur, Distt. Ralpur (C.G) 2. Prakash Kumar S/o S.P. Vidhyarthi, R./o ft^.i.G.-S, Kabir Nagar, Ring Road No.2, Hirapur, '.O. Hirapur, Dlstt. RasDi •) The Nev.' insurance Co. Lta., Through DivisioriaS Manager, Divisionai Office. Jaii Road, teipur (C.G.) _SECTiQN.t7:3Q^IJ-lE_MQTQR.iffiUtCU iP^S^ i ij t^^'Si : Shri S.C. Verma. counsei forthe appeliant. None for responderts No.1 & 2. Shri Anand Gupta, counse! for respondent No.: ^<^ns 's ss? -a' The instsnt appeai has been preferreci by the sppellant for seeKing enhancement of compensation against the awaro dsted 20-12-2002'passed by Third Addi. Motor Accicjent Cialms Tribunai, Raipur (for short 'the Triaunai') in ciaim case No. 56/2002 whereby ^nd whereunder an amount of Rs. 10.000/- aiona with interest @-' 9% annum has been a'warded as !|g^:'r^iiB^^ compensation in favour of the appellant from the date of application fjt! its actual payment. ^ The brief facts of the case according to appellant are that, on 14-06-2001 af about 4-30 P.M., the appelsant aiong with her parents while traveiing by Tata Sumo bearing reglstration No. BF 16-J-0032, met with an accldent and pursuant to the accicfent she sustained grievous injuries. 3. The appeilant preferred an appiicatson bel-ore the TriQunsl under Section 166 of the Motor Vehlcies Aci, ciaiming compensation to the tune of Rs, 3,16.000/- for tne injuries sustained bv her on sccouni or the saic acclaent. 4. The Tribunai, on a close scrutiny of ti the parties, the matertal avaiiabie on submissions of the parties, awarded total am< aiong with jnterest 9% per annum as compe the appeilant from the date of application. •se evidence ied by the record, and iuntofRs, 10.000A ?f^i ir ^i' 5. Learned counsei for the appellant wouid submlt that aithough the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but looking to the faci that the appeilant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded oy tne Tribunal is shQcklngly on !ower side, this appeal may be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. S. Per contra, isarned counsel appearina for the respondent has supported the impugned award and submltted that the learned Tribunai has rightiy passed the award in favour of the appeliant. I have neara the iearned couns( and perused the record. •! appearing for the parties . The Suprerne Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Idy, reported in 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as tUW. After heanng iearned counsei for the respondent- claimant v/ho made an.attempt to support the order of the Hish Court. Vtfe flnd th-gt"thers was no ^ustification ror the Bt.l-tliR" High Court to reiy on the dssabiiity certificate iss.ued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the CQmpensaffon by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlooking ths fact th.at Dr. Sucihakar Reddy's medicai certmcate was rerectea bv the fribuna! for non- examinatlQn of that doctor. The Tribuna! has determined ihe physicai disabiijty at 'i 5 per cent on ihe basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. Jhe High Court erreo' in disturbing the sarne and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, we aiiow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribura!. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of ccmpensation awarded by the Tribuna!, if It has not aiready been withdrawn." h wSKS SiW 9. The Supreme Court in a recent dicturn in case of Kumar aiias v. Yudhvir Sinah and another, reported 7 SCC 385, reiierated the same view with the foilovi'ii observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case wes obtained after t*</o years. It is r.ot known as to whether the Ci'/i! Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appeiiant. On whaf basls, such a certifjcate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certmcate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himseif, it was not admissible in evidence. Whsther the disabiiitv at S0% was ca'cuiated on the basis of the provlsions of the Workmen's ComDensation Act or otherwise js not known. !t is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. it sven does not aDoear that the contentions raised before us had elther been raised bsfore the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunai as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on ree-Oi'd by the pai+ies. !n absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the app!icabj!ity of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinlon, ex facie has no application, th©same, in our opinion, cannot be perrnitted to be raised for the first time." 0. A Division Bench of.this High Court in case of Pradeep vae ot iis'- dicta of Supremi 8 as under: March, 2009, piacing its reliance upon Court in the cases referred above held In "8. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.- SRTC v. P. Thsrupa! Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Ssngh snd another (supra), the certs'fscate produced before the (^) s s^wsw ?^-- !^i 1:'^':E;!S:?:;^ Tribunat In the absence of examlnation of the Doctor issuing the cert'flcate is nsiiher admissibie in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantivs evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case." 11. Admittedly, the claimant in his own wisdom did not examine Doctor tQ prove'the injurs/ sustained in ths accident and to prove the resultant ioss. in view of the dicta of tha above referred cases, the injury reports, certificates produced, in the abs8r,oe of examination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are nelther admissible In evidence nor can be taken into conslderatlon as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation inthecase. 12. In a motor accident ciaim case, as per Section 1 68 of the SViotor Vehictes Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunai sriould be just and proper compeRsation in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. 13. For the reasons mentioned scope for enhancement of the •einabove, 1 do not fina an' pensation awarded-by thi f i 14. The appea! fiied by the appeliant for enhancement of the cornpensation is therefore liable to be and Is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ._A-- -—— Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge