IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CC.G.1 S&r /-—^-? MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL fC) N0. ->> -:> OF 2010 APPELLANTS \\^^ ^••"\ 1.A .--Y"r\>&"'..-• .*** •^w ^•^'fs^^ e-^'' .. -ll^ ^^A-*v y.o-p\ ^ (Owner) 1.. Ram Prasad Singh @ Pratap Son of Bhore Lal Gond, aged about 29 . years, Occupation Driver, R/o. Village Bhavrahi Police Chowki, Basdei, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) fNon-applicant No.tl 2. Ramadhar Singh Son of Ramsharan Singh, aged about unknown, R/o. Village Bhavrahi Police Chowki, Basdei, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C,G.) fNon-appIicant No.21 RESPONDENTS fClaimantl VERSU5 Naresh Kumar Jaiswal, Son of Parshu Ram Jaiswal, aged about 35 years, R/o. Vittage Karouda Muda, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) fApplicann flnsurer) 2. ICICIC, Lombard Motor Insurance G.I.C.I.F.D. Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 AppeSlants/ M.A.(C)No. 53 of 2010 Ram Prasad Singh & Another Naresh Kumar Jaiswai & Another APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT Shri Chhabi Patei, Advocate for appellants. ORM >-®C:M^fss is ucay tj'a s 1c;fc^a usai ^'5 1. The instant appea! has been preferred by the appellant, seekin( enhancement of compensation against the award dated 28.10.2009, passed by the llnd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai (FTC), Surajpur; Distt. Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 191/07. 2. The brief facts of the case according to the appellant are that, on 25.04.2007, the appeilant met wlth an accident with Pickup Van bearing registration No. CG-15/A/5049 due to which the appellant sustained multipie injuries. 3. The appeliant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident. 4. The Tri'ouna!, on a ciose scrutiny of t'ne evidence !ed by the parties, the material available on the record, and submlssions of the parties, awarded total amount of Rs. 33,000/- as compensation In favour of the appellant. 5. Learned counse! for the appeliant would submit that aithough the Doctor has not been examlned in this matter, but looking to the Tact t'nat the appeliant sustalned multiple injuries, and amount awarded is shockingly on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the amount of comoensation be ;arina Tor the appeilant and 6. I have heard th.e learned counsel perused the a'ward imDuaned. 7. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. reported in (200S) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "S.After liearing iearned counse! 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 reiy on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error i'n overlooking the fact thaf Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunat has determined the physical disabiiity 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 appeai, set asidethe impugned order and restore the award ofthe Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not atready 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 with the folSowing obsen/atl 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 aut'nor of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether t'ne disability at 60% was ca!culated 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 wascompetent to issus 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." •CT 9. 10. 11 12. 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 re!iance 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. Thirifpal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumsr alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh snd anothw (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admlssible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case." Admittedly, the ciaimant 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. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal fited 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. Agarwal ; Judge Kvr ^.' ''^^W-^^f®!^^?