w“, , IN a‘ HIGH COURT OF GHHATTEGARH AT BILASPUR C M.A. Na. 2%§__9£ 2002. 1 AP?ELLAN,T . Patango wifeof Ranjit, Caste Rajwar 'CLAIMANT aged about 66 years, occupation cu vation. resiaent of village eshavnagar,~P.S?. Bishrampur. Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (c.G.) , i VERSUS. y” RE3PONDENTS a . n Kumar, son of Radheshyam, ‘NeN-Aypricmm aged about. 36 years, R/c village %ikapur, P.Si. 5: Tah. Ambikapur ‘ laistt. $11rguja .(C‘G. ) . ’z‘ “a: IWM " x( OWNER ) 3, Lb / f , 2 akhan Prajapati son o£ Jana}: w‘ Prajapati. aged about 38 years, R/o Ambikapur. P.s:x.r & ‘Ijah.Ambika.. pur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (DRIVER) United India insurance Co. Lt&. Through : 'Branch Manager, Branch office, Near Ram MandinAmbikapur Distt. Surguja (Ci.G.) i maURER .) APPEALMUNDER. ESECTION 173 OF MOTOR VE‘HCLE ACT, 1988 FOR- ENHANCEMENT” OF ‘V’I‘HE AWUNT’OF - AWARD’ : // Wk - Paango t Versus un Ku Ar mar & Others AppLllant Claimant 1 Reslpondents Nonl applicants APP EAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. ' l —..-£- . hriAtanu Gosh,Advocates for apellant. Present S h p (Pase on 15 ay 0f January, 2010) 1 ‘—~._ \ ‘ \ \ \ ‘ Th ntant appel ha been preferred by the appellan seeking ncement of cmpenn agst he award dated 1 1 ssed tio cid aim ribul urt ajr Disric ula rlbl) I aim o 0 e rie ct f s e .015‘the ws g o’ P o d g ri ai us ued turtle ar Kenchua Nala and as a result of which, h apellant sustaine serious injuries. Th pelln preferred an application before the Tribunal under Setio 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation to t une of Rs. 4,000l- for the injuris sustained by him on a unt of the said accident. T Tbunal, on a close scrutiny of the evience led by the paies, terial available o the cord, and sbmissns of he nts in l vor t Lerne counsel fo the appellant would sub that although the Dtor has not been exaned matte but loog to te fact th te appellant susted gvous ury, nd amount awarded en a osatio ain t 4 12 0 pa by the Ist Addinal Motor Acent Cls Tna Camp Co Surpu tt Surg (for short ‘Tuna n cl case ‘ N 128/1 Th bf fas o the cae according to th appellant are that, on 092.99, appellant a travelin in Bus bearing registration N CL—8002. Due t rash an neglient dving of the Driver, the sd B trn ne te. p d e‘ apat oin , he‘ t 0,0 e c 1o h] ri d rt the? ma n re uio t paie, awarded total amount of Rs. 3000/— as compensation fau of the appellan ad r mit oc mi In thls r kin h at h ain rie inj a ; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 233 OF2002 (SB: Honble Mr. N.K. Aqarwal, J.) ORAL ORDER sa ‘“ d 1 é Is a s t is shocking on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the amcimnt of compensation be enhanced i have heard the Iearned counsel appearing for the appellant and pertirsed the record. Supreme CorJrt incase of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Reddy, Thej l l repprted in (2005) 12 sec-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 find that there was no justmcation for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High . Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating l Court 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. K.M. Mitra 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 V the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.“ The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alijas Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305; reiterated the same view with the following observations in para11: “11. The certificate‘in question in this case was obtained after two years. lt is not knoWn as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certidcate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate 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. lt even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the Hih Court. \The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brouht on record by the parties. ln absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen’s 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.” . l A Qivision Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahfu vs. Sampa Sahu & another vide order dated 315‘ March, 2609, 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 above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupai Raddy. (supra) and (supra), the certiticate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certihcate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case." 10. In the‘p'resent case, the 'appellant has neither produced the disability certificate nor examined the Doctor to prove the injuries sustained by the appellant. Admittedly, the claimant in his own wisidom‘ did not eiamine 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 examinationaof the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of t l Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another l i . . compensation In the case. l Foir the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any scope for; enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal tiled by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. , N. K. Agarwal if, Judge t i Sd/r .i ./