\vv HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant Applicant Respondents Misc. Appeal (Cl No.1649 of 2008 Mahesh Jagannath Kholgade, S/o Jagannath Govind Kholgade, Age 30 R/o Wategaon, Distt Sangli (MP) VERSUS 1 Jaiprakash Gupta, S/o Mahangu Ram Gupta, age 33 years, R/o Tara Police outpost Prem-Nagar, Distt Ambikaur 2 Yogesh Pratap Singh, s/o AP Singh, r/o Babu-para, Ambikapur 3 The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., through DMsional Manager, office at Gitanjali Bhawan, Korba 4 Akhilash Pratap Singh, s/o AP Singh, R/o Babu-para, Ambikapur Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER |th (14mJuly,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. .^'y^:- -^ ^ ;^ -^. ;^ % "^& S5-E^^; Appellant/ Claimant Mahesh Jagannath Kholgade is seeking enhancement of the compensatjon awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, distt Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.08.2008, passed in Claim Case No.110/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.98,63,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.06.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,20,221/-as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the daim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.CG 04 ZA/0491 liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 4) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident; the fact that the injuries and the fractures sustained by the claimant in the motor accident resulted in amputation of his left leg below knee; and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.2,50,000/- for permanent disability; Rs.62,781/- for medical expenses and conveyance; Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.42,440/- for loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.5,000/- for special diet; and Rs.10.000/- for the adverse affect on the matrimonial prospects. The Tribunal, thus, ?-^ -^s^ i X 'Ne^ I '•''-':: ^.'v^' "v^ .^ ^^- :v;''^?'</w^s^ awarded a total sum of Rs.4.20,221/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,20,221/- @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred jn awarding low compensation of Rs.4,20,221/- only, though the appellant /claimant on account of the amputation of his left leg below knee, has been rendered unfit to pursue any occupation. 6) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Bus,on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.4,20,221/- as compensation to the claimant. 7) In a motor accident claim case what is Jmportant is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 8) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,20,221/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 9) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined as many as two witnesses including himself (AW/1 Mahesh Jagannath Kholgade and AW/2 Khusu Lal) in support of his claim. For the reasons best ^./ n?/ known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal for establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that the amputation of his teft leg was on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident 10) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was 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 flnd that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance thecompensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina 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 Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 11) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following 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 treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate 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. Whetherthe 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 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." -^ .^' 6 12) The medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors who had issued those certificates in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra) cannot be taken into consfderation for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 13) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14) Even otherwise, the compensation of Rs.4,20,221/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the broad features of the case, in our opinion, cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge subbu