N"i:HW3!i d^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G.) M.A.NO. ~7S'^-i 12003 Blyl.;;- APPELLANT CLAIMANT A<*' ^^s>y- ^^3^^° --^^•" "••••'''/.^•"'^'fc'-"' ^^^^ r>p< •f<e~ &i- ^' A o' Vikas Kumar Arya, S/o Shri K.L. Arya aged about 18 years, Resident of Ward Namnakala, P.S. & Tahsil- Ambikapur, Distt Surguja(Chhattisgarh), through his natural guardian, father Shri K.L. Arya, R/o Arabikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS IIB:*IB:11 (7 General Manager, O.C.M.(S.E.C.L.) Bishrampur, Distt.Surguja (Chhattisgarh). ^2. Mahesh Singh, S/o Ram f^ c- Kumar Singh, Driver, R/o. D.N./G 167, Station Road Bishrampur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) /ft^ 3.,The Oriental Insurance :ompany Ltd., Ambedker Chauk Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) \^" APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ENHANCEMEN1 OF AMOUNT OF AWARD. ;a::;l, IffijiMi. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .A. No. 754 of 2003 Vikas Kumar Arya Versys Genera! Manager, O.C.M.(SECL), Bishrampur & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1SB: Hcn'ble Mr.N.K. Aaarwal, J.j Shri Neeraj Mehta, Advocate for appellant. Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Advocate for respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Varunendra Mishra, Advocate for respondent j Agrawal, 3. >tFT .!li :ilt«ft'l The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 05.07.2003, passed by the Vth Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (for short 'Tribunal') in claimcase No. 01/02. The brief facts of the case according to the appeilant are that, on 12.10.01, fhe appellant met with an accident with Truck bearing registration No. MP 27/5915 due to which the appellant sustained injuries. The appeliant preferred an appiication before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune' of Rs. 2,75,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evldence led by the parties, the materia! available on the record,. and submissions of the parties, awarded total amount of Rs. 33,248/- as compensation in fsvour of the appellant. i Learned counsei for.the appeliant would submit that although the Doctor has not been examlned in this matter, but looking to the fact ^, i i '^.^ /" '^: |8;,|!H.DN that t'ne appellant sustained multiple injuries, and amount awarded is shocking on lower side, this appeai may be aliowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 6. I have heard the iearned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. 7. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, » reported in (2005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "S.After hearing learned counse! for the respondent-claimant 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. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the cpmpensation by treating the injury as permanent disabtlity to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certlficate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunat has determined the physicai disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hjgh Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, we allow fhis 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 aiready been withdrawn." 8. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view v/rth 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 hospitai treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was i'ssued 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 otheroise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to jssue such a certifipate. It even does not appear that the contentions raisecf 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 bees raised in. regard to the appiicability 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." -^il 1 .yff lf, .' ^ ^; A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa 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 Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Rw/dy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case." 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 absenceof examination of the Doetor issuing the injury reports, certiflcates are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. For the reasons mentiQned hereinabove, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed, No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Hahu