APPELLANT Clai‘ma‘nts \ XRESPONDENTS : fv I ‘ , DRIVER an .4 Claims before the Tribunal i’Court fee paid"‘ Rs. Awarded Same in the present appeal. C23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (c.G.) M'.A. No : f Smt. Kumari Bai, aged about 25 years W/o. Ganga Ram Patel, R/o. Village. Mangala, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)' VERSUS l. ’Jagdish, S/o. Ghasiran’i‘Dewangan R/o. Dewangan Mohalla, Takhatpur Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Amit Agrawal, S/o. Satyanarayan Agrawal, R/o. Village Barela, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Sr.Divisional Manager Beside Hero Honda Show Room, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) Girdhari, aged about 45 years S/o. Anup Singh Thakur, R/o. Tikaripara, Takhatpur, District . Bilaspur (C.G.) Vinay Kumar, S/o. K.N. Bajpai R/o. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) H% /2004 avisiun 3am Rs. 1,25,000/- 15/- .pv 20,000]- amount Rs. r ‘VEHICLE ACT, 1988 :‘MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S “:73 OF THE MOTOR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR q/t MISC. APPEAL No. 1176 OF 2004 Smt. Kumaa'i Bai APPELLANT! Claimant Versus Jagdish and athers.‘ RESPONDENTS APPEAL UIS 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 {Sinqie Bench: ,Hon’ble Mr. N.K. Aggrwai, J.) i??e;ent . Shn Goutam Khetrapai counsefforthe appeliant Ms Ram Pathak counse! for respondents No1 & 2 Shn Sourabh Sharma counsei for respondent No 3 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23rd day of Ociober, 2010) The instant appeai has been preferrec; by the appeilant for seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated $1 08-2004 passed by Fourth Add! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bltaspur (for short ‘the Tnbunat) m ctatm case No.21 /2003 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 20,000/- atong with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded as ' dompensation in favour of the appettant. 2. Brief facts of the case according to appeiiant are that on 20-08-2001 the appeliant white gomg from Biiaspur‘to Takhatpur along Wtth her son and husband by Jeep bearing registration No M P 26lE—647'6 which was driven by respondent No.1, met with an accident due to rash and negiigent driving by the driver oif the Jeep and pursuant to said acctdent, the appetiant sustained grievous injuries. 3{ ‘The'appeliant-preférred an application before the Tribunai under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ciatmrng compensation to the tune of Rs 1 25 OOUI- aiong With Interest at 1g% forthe injuries sustained by her in the said accrdent. 4 ‘ The Ji'ribunat, on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence ted, materiai pieced and submissions made by the parties, awarded ajn amount cf Rs. 20,000/— as compensation aiong with interest Q1 6% per annum in favour of the appellant as against respondents No.1 to 3 and the said amounf is directed to be paid lithin two months. if the amount of compensation is not paid wtthin th period stipuiated, the amount shaii carry 9% tnteres e per annum. 5. Learned counsel for the appeliant wOuid submit that al hough the Doctor has not been examined but looking to the fait that the appellant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on lower side; this appeai may be allowed and the compensation may be suitably enhanced. ’ a a l l~ l, 6. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties a and perused the records of the Tribunal. 7. V The Supreme Court in case of AP. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Reddy, reported in (2605) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under ' I “6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court: 'We find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. treating Sudhakar the Reddy injury as and permanent enhance disability the compensation to be 45 per by cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact‘that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certincate was rejected 'by the Tribunai for ‘ non- i the examination physical of disability that doctor. at 15 The per cent Tribunal on the has basis determined of the ‘ deposition of Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a just and fair t compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the i ; we same allow and this enhancing appeal, set the aside compensation. the impugned Consequently, order and g restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The jcornpensation respondent-claimant awarded is allowed by the to Tribunal, withdraw the if it amount has not of E already been withdrawn “ iix i 8. jThe Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumalr alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported i (20083 7 scc 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 1 1 :. n g 9. i Ku+nar Sahu vs. Ma}ich, 2009, pla Coqrt in the cases “8. in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. another (supra), l ‘ J ‘ ‘ ‘ "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained ; after two years. it is not- known as t9 whether the Civii s Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what ‘ accidenttook basis, such a piace certificate is not was known. issued The two author years of after the said the certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself,‘ it was not admissibie in Whether the disability at 60% was caiculated evidence. on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's t Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. tt is also not r known as to whether he was competent to issue such a ‘record by the parties. 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.” A DivisiOn Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep sampa Sahu & another vide order dated 31 5‘ cing its reliance ‘upon the dicta of Supreme " having been raised in re ppear that the contentions any - contention gard to the applicability of the 10. Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admissible in evidence nor for assessment of the consideration compensation as in substantive the case.” evidence Admittedly, examine Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the accident and referred cases, the injury reports, certificates produced, in the absehce of examinatiOn of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken antive evidence for enhancement of can be taken into to prove the resultant loss. into donsjideratlon l as ‘ subst .. complensation in the case. 11 . gin a motor accident cl l Motor; Vehicles ’Act, cOmpensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be l certificate. lt even does not a ‘ raised :before us had either , proceeded on the materials brought on ln absence of referred above held in para 8 as under: ln view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court P. Thirupal Raddy (supra) Raju V. Yudhvir Singh and the certificate produced before the the claimant in her own wisdom did not ln View of the dicta of the above aim case, as per Section 168 of the 1988, what. is important ‘is that the