”Q3 lN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE A T BILASPUR (C.G.) a.“ M.A.Nc.33é /202'.' Ram Das Sonvof Baban , y aged-about 36 years, Caste—graoa, Occupation-Service In S.EaC.L., R/o Subhash Nagar. Thana . Charcha Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt. ~ Koriya (C.G.). 7/ V E R S U S \ l. Saatlal son of Buddhu Ram, aged about 28 years, Occupati0 — Driver, R/o village-Bardiya, Ehana & Post— Patna,uTah.Baikunth- pur. Distt. — Koriya (C.Gw). _, j Ramlal Jaiswal S/o'Mahadev Jaiswal. aged about 4O years. resideat of village—Chhimdiya, Thana & Post— Patna, Tahsil — Baikunthpur, Distt.— Koriya(C.G.). ‘ (DRIVERY i. Y (bWNER) National lnsuramce Co.Ltd., Thxough: Branch Manager, National Insuramce CQlLtd. Kbrba Post Of£ice, Korba , Distt.— Korba (C.G.). (INSURER) APPEAL ?§PER SEC?ION 173 O?HMOTOR VEHICLE ACT? ;§88 / 1 E‘OR mmémENT OF THE Awm‘in‘“: f Appeal valued ia sum of m 1.00.009/— g Court fees paid k 15/— onlY:ff/g ..2.. o m Q/ ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICA‘I‘URE A T BILAsPUR (C.G.) V r vv \\ 1—A. Fulmati Widow of Late Ramdas, aged about 37 years, Caste Uraon; l—B. Ravi Kumar Son of Late Ramdas, aged about 5 years, Minor, Through his natural guardian mother F‘ulmati Widow of Late Ramdas Both are resident of Village Raghuveerpur, Posi Sarbhoka, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya {C.G.} F /W r \ w salt - "’ APPELLANT } $297 CLAIMANT wig» RESFONEENT EON— APPL1cm IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 396 of 2002 éPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1§B: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Presenti‘f sm Ashok Shukla With Shri Atanu Gin—£1}, Advocates for the W appellants. None for the respondents. ‘ ' ‘ ORAL ORDER . (Passed on 14‘“ day of July, 2010) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 31 .01.02, passed by the Vlth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 18/01. Brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that, on 25.03.1999, while the husband of appellant No. 1 Ram Das (since deceased) was traveling in Mini Bus bearing registration No. MP-27-B-1970, the said Bus turned turtle due to which he sustained multiple injuries. The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to thetune cf Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries . sees? sustained by him on account of the said accident. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence Ied by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, awarded total amount of Rs. 3,0001- as compensation in favour of the appellant. h: Appellant Fulmati & Another Claimant Versus Réspondents Santlal & Others 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that atthough the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but looking to the fact that the appellant sustained multiple injuries, and amount awarded is shockingly on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 6. l have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the award impugned. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. sRTc v. P. Thimpal Raddy, reported in (2Q05) 12 scc-189, observed in para 6 as ‘under: “6.After hearing learned counsel for the respondent-olaimant who made‘an attempt to support the order of the High Court. We find that there was no justification for the High Court to v rely 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 in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability 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 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." 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 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 certilicate 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 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. 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.” 3 A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar iSahu vs. Sampa Sahu & another vide 'order dated 319‘ 1 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. Thimpal Raddy (supra) and Sahu // ‘* ‘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.“ 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. Neither multiple injury was found nor permanent disability certificate was tiled. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal tiled by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwah 4 Judge