§‘:i;‘e§ Bg§§$h @ & \c;\/ \_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.[ M.A. No Bé} [2004 / /Shriram, S/o. Hem Rai Aged 33 years, R/o. Village Nayadhaba, Ward No.—2, Tah. and Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) APPELLANT” APPLICANT VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1 N0N4APPLICANTs Jag‘rar Singh, S/o. Mehar Singh Aged about 32 years, R/o. 106 BT Road, K01kata-35 (W.B.) New India Insurance Co.Ltd. l40/D.B.T. Road, Kolkata Claim‘s , before . the Tribunal Rs. 2,90,000/-/ Court fee paid Awarded amount Rs. 15/4 Rs“. Same in the preSent appeal. /( MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Ui S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT, 1?88 r7 8,800/— /’ Rx HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlsGARH AT EILAsPUR MISC APPEAL No 365 OF 2004 APPELLANT] APPLICANT Shriram Versus Jagat Singh and another. RESPONDENTS NON'-APPL!CANT$ APPEAL UIS 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1983 (Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aqarwal, J.) y} \M‘ Present Shn Anand Shukla counsel forthe appellant None for respondent No 1 Shrl S Pandva counsei for respondent No 2 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19‘“ day at septemben 291a) ’ The instant appea! has been preferred by the appenan for seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 29-1 1-2003 passed by First Addi. Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Tribunal') in ciaim ease No.217/2002 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rsi 8,8OOI- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the appeilant. 2. Brief facts of the case according to appaiiant are that, on 02-01—2002, the appellant while going from Rajnandgaon to his Village Aasara by Hero Honda Motorcycle, he wasdashecl by Truck bearing registration No. W.B 23/8303 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle‘(Truck) and pursuant to said accident, the appellant sustainedgrievous lhjUl'leS. 3. The appeliant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,90,0001- along with interest, for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. t @ 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrminy of the evidance led, material placed and submissions made, awarded total amount of Rs. 8,800/-, has been awarded as compensation in favour of . the appeliant. 5. Learned counsel for the appeilant would submit that although the Doctor has not been examined but tacking to the fact that the appellant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the compensation may be suitably enhanced. 6. l have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. 7. The Supreme Court in case of AP. SRTC v. P. 'Thirupal Raddy, reported in (2005) 12 SOC-189, observed in para 6 as unden “6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of , the High Court. We rind that there was no justirieatien fer the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Roddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medial certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- , examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined . the physical disability at 15 percent on the basis of the i deposition or or. KM. initra and awarded a‘ just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the Satire and enhancing the compensation. Consequently. . ‘ we allow this appeal, set aside the impugnedorder 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 n _ already been withdrawn.“ 8. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumanalias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 scc 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : “1 1. The certificate in question in this case was obtained aner two years. it is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what . s basis, such a certmcate was issuad two yeats after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. .Unless the auhor 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 Worlcnan’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. lt 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. 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 reis a d for the hrst time.” 9. A. Division Bench of this High Court in cse of Pmdeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sampa sahu & another vide order dated 31“ March, 2009, 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 g Court in the cases or A.P. sRrc v. P. Thimpar Raddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v Yudhvir Sinyh and another (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doctor. issuing the certihcate is neid'ier admissible in evidence nor can be ‘taken into consideration as subsbntive . evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case." 10. Admittedly, the claimant in his own wisdom: did“ not examine 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 examination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certificates are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. 11. ln a motor accident claim case, as per smion 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is impertant is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courtsffribunai should be s «w‘c ’just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, ldc not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. 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. Sty- N.K. AGARWAL Judge Kvr '