6-f^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH- JUDICATE AT BILASPUR M.A.C.NO. 1^^2008 an,,".,, Manak Lal , aged 43 years; Jl'E""" S/o^jbshikesii Sahu, R/o Village Joratarai, Police Station Bhakhara, Teshil Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG). APPELLANT (CLAIMANT)^)1^. ^••••::' ^•-; ••^^'S^r' -y :"'^i-^ •••-:'^p1 VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. (NON-CLAIMANTS) Psippy^Qlms Parnieshwar S/o'Batelu Ram Sahu , R/o Village Bhakhara, Police Station Bhakhara, Teshil Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG). 2. Lekh Ram , S/o Guhledram Sahu, 11— R/o Village Gujra, P.0. Doma, Police Station Bhakhara, Tehsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG). 3. The New India Insurance Company ^_ Limited, Regional Office, 2 R.D.A. Building, Bajrang Market, G.E.Road, Raipur , Tehsil and District Raipur (CG). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QF MQTOR VEHICLES ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BliASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C} No. 1406 OF 2008 ^- Appellant Claimant Respondents Non- Claimant Manak Lal Versus Pappu alias Parmeshwar & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. (SB: Hon'bleMr.N.K.Aaarwal.J.) Present : Shri GS Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shyamli Naidu, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent No. 1. Shri Ad'rtya Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ORDER (Passed on 13th dayof November, 2009) With the consent of the parties, the matter is hearcl finally. Heard on admission. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 03.07.2008, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'Tribunal') in claim case No. 105/06. The brief facts of the case according to appeltant are that, on 22.02.2006, whilethe appellant was traveling in Minibus bearing registration No. CG-04/ZB-1597, met with anaccidenftdue to which the appeltant sustained injuries. The appellant preferred an applteation before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimjng compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of the said accident. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submisstons of the parties, awarded total amount of Rs. 700/- as compensation in favour of the appellant. ^ 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the Doctor has not been examined in this matter, but looking to the fact that the appellant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded is shocking on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. 7. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel 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 rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treatjng the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overiooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by tfie 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 Jmpugned 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." 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 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 Civll Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certifieate 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 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 ofthe 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." 9. A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahu & another vide order dated 31 March, 2009, Sahu placing its reliance upon the dteta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above held in para 8 as under: "8. In view of the above quoted dicte of the Apex Court jn the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar allas Raju v. Yutthvir Sfngh 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 ofthe compensation in the case." 10. Admittedly, the claimant in hls 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 substantjve evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. 11. For the reasons^nentioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. 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. Agarwal Judge