.P.T^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATHCHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 624 of 2010 Appellant Claimant Motiram s/o. Bishal Ram Sahu, aged about 40 years, r/o. village Modhe, Post Pratappur, P.S. Dadhi, Tahsil Bemetar, District Durg (CG). VERSUS Respondents i- 1 Jaleshwar s/o. Thanuram Sahu, aged about 29 years, Driver. 2 Ramavatar s/o. Thanuram Sahu, aged about 31 years, registered owner. Both are residents of village Nagpura, Tahsil and Police Station Navagarh, District Durg (CG). 3 Branch Manager, ICICI Lombord Insurance Company Ltd., Lal Ganga Shopping Mal UG.304300 3rd Floor GE Road Raipur. Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri H.P. Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Amrito Das, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (16th November, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. .€^"'Ty^ //^ '\ ^ .^yfeaA^—-^, ^ "k ,. ' y/ % "%,.,.,1•^^ ^Ssa MAC.No. 624 of 2010 Appellant/claimant Motiram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, district Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.01.2010, passed in Claim Case No.66/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 13,40,0007- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23.04.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,70,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri H.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 4) Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for respondent No.3 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 5) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and propercompensation in the facts and circumstances of "'^ ''t' -sSiA § :w s 's-y "-^/ MAC.No. 624 of 2010 the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nora Bonanza. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Before the Tribunal though the claimant produced a disability certificate certifying his disability to the extent of 30%, for the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, the doctorwho had issued the disability certificate was not examined before the Tribunal for proving the contents of the certificate. 8) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctorwho issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel 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 compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fajr R'. ^ ^,1 "^ ^'^' MAC.No. 624 of 2010 compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina 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." 9) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the 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 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 otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does notappear 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." MAC.No. 624 of 2010 10) The disability certificate produced by theclaimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctor who had issued the said certificate, in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 11) Even otherwise, the compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. ) Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu