IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BNisi-on Bench A. No. KCX/mos M.E RESPONDENTS R NgN-APPLICANTS ,3 . Kewal Singh Rana , S/o . Sapundra Singh, R/o. M.G. Road Raipur (C.G.) . \.»;/:"\ APPEAL U/S. 17 3 OF M.V. ACT FOR ENHANCEMENT 1.Appeal Valued in sum of Rs;3,!UU,OOO/— 2.c1aimed in Tribunal in Rs. 3,"6''07,000/— 3.Amount awarded in Rs.25,000/—with 69 ”(Ravindranath Haldhar, Son of Late Shri Harendranath Haldhar , Aged about 4 5 years, * Caste—Bangali ,~ Occupation—Business, R/o . Surajpur, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C~ G. ) VERSUS Oriental Insurance Compan Limi ted , y Through Branch Manager, Branch Offi Cé— Ambikapur, Distt.Surguja C.G. (INSURER) Shyam Lal Shanna, S/o . Gyanchandra Sharma , Aged about 34 years, Occupation— Driver, R/o . r\ N Tekanaka Nagpur (Maharasht‘ra) (DRIVER) (OWNER) uw" as intp.a. 1% WGH CQS§T G‘: $%§HA”§“§”SS$ARH AT §§LAS€3UR M§$£. Q??E&L MO 3% m: ”ifwé”: £PPEAL UNEER $EGHQN “W3 a¥ H15 W QTO& gar§i£L" my i, “19v €S§s~qEe genera: Hon‘me Me: NK; Aa&ma§. J‘ ' y"§§em‘ : {m A K Shuxia younseawah onnAtanu Gnosh caunse§ ‘cr tne appeHam $hn $udhxr Aarawal cednsel for {espordent N9 ’i Nona fm resymdEh s N6 4 & 3 i‘f‘T 490§ ORN. ORBER {Pasémd an 13‘“ day «3'? .iuiy, 2§w§ The instant appeai has been prefewed by the appenan‘i‘ for seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 15(3-04—2G05 passed by Thim Addi Viator Accident Ciaims grzbuwai (r 1 )wraisour 5.);S7t burau;a(for snort we fraounan m 31am: case No. ziIzOOd whereby and whereunder an amoum of Rs. 25.00% aiong wéih interest @ §% per annum has been awarded as compensation in favour of the appeiiani. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the appeilan‘i are that, on 17-06-2062, the appeliant whiie going from Surejpur to Raipur by his Zeep (Marshai) bearing registration No. MP, 2?/51i6, was dashed. by offending vehicie (Track) bearing registration NOMP. 23 D/A - 4494 due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the Truck/respondent No.2, as a result of which the appeiian‘c sustained grievous injuries. 3. The appeiiant preferred an appiioation before the Tribunei under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, ciaiming compensation to the tune Of Rs 380.06% for the injuries sustained by her on account of the saio‘ accident. : A9PELLAV¥ Qawmranam Hawar Wamani: geisus’ £ESPC§N§3ENT$ Orientai Insurance Compaw ana‘ MGM- athers. APPLE¢AN?$ 4. Thais ”3'ribumai, 0a a mesa scrutmy of the evidence led by he pafcies, ihe maien‘ai avaé%abie on the record, and submiss5ons of the pariies, awarded tote! amount of Rs. 25,00Q/- ammg wi‘m mterest 9% pe; annum as comgeneation in §avour of E ihe appeimnt. E Learned counsei for the appeliant wouid submit that ‘ aréhough the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but iogkrng to {he fact that’ the appehant sustained grievous iniuryr ane arnouni awarded by ihe Tribunai is shockingfy on Qower side, this apnea may be afiowed and the compensation be enhanced. ‘ l nave heard the learned ceunsel appearing tor the appellant and perused the record. 6‘ L7. The $nprerne Court in ease ot‘ AP. $RTC V. P. Thimna! Raddy, repeated in {2$t}£) t2 $CC-189, observed in para 6‘ as unden “6. After nearing learned counsel for tne respondent- ciaimam‘ who made a" attempt te Siwwt the ”Pier e‘ t I “Li. MVVVI" “Ha VIUWI i Li e High Court. We find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability oertificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Recidy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medicai 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. KM. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancino the compensation. Consequentiy, we aiiow this appeai: set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The resoondent—ciaimant is aiioweci to withdraw the amount of oompensationsawarded by the Tribunai, if it has not aiready been withdrawn 8. The Supreme C(ourt in a recent dictum in case of Rajesn Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (20%) T SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the toilowing observations in para i’i : “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 appeiiant On what basss such a certlfmene was Issued two years after the accuient took piace is not known The auinor of ihe semi certmcate had not been examined Unless the autnor of the certificate examined himsetf, it was not admissibte in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was caicuieted on the basis of the provtsiens of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. it is also not known as to whether‘ he was competent to issue such a certificate. it even does not appear that the contentions raised be‘ore us had either been rat eel before the Tnbunai or the High Court me nounai as aiso the High f‘nnrt therefore proceeded on the materia‘s brmmht on record by the parttes. In absence of any contention havmg been raised in regard to the appiicabiiity of the Workmens Cowpenseton Act v't‘rch rr‘ our W5 ion, ex facre has no appncanon the same m our oprnron cannot be permttted to be raised for the first time.” ‘9. A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sane vs. Serupa Sahu & another vide order dated 315* March, 2009, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the oases referred above held in para 8 as under: “8. in View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of AP. SRTC v. P. Thimpa! Raddy (supra} and Rajesh Kumar aiias 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. Admittediy. 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 admissibie in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as‘s‘Ubstantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. 1t. in a motor accident ciaim case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the CourtsiTribunai shouid be §u$t and proper compeasation m the facts and circumstance of each % case. it is neither a bounty nor charity. ‘12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove‘ i do not find anv s‘cope for enhancement of the compensatEon awarded by the Wibunal. ‘ ‘13. The appeal filed by the appeiiant for enhancement of the oompensatton is therefore Itable to be and is hereby otsmtssed. No oreer as to costs. ' ‘7" Sdl- I N.K.Agrawal ,_ Judge Kvr