^' .y^.^. H^ THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COyRT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ( f ^ M.A.N0..3 c? ^2002 (Jf>^) APPLICANT APPELLANT VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS y/ 1) 2) ^ Ramchandra, aged about 41 years, S/o. Rupsai, agriculturist^R/o. ^mbikapur, Distt. Sarguja^ P.0. ^ Raghunathpur, Present R/o. Chandni Chowk Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (CG). ^Gumdas^ S/o. Piliman Isai^ R/o. Mategurda, m front of Bus staad, Distt. Bastac^Chhattisgarh) (DRIVER) ,. Gopendra Singh Chouhan^ S/o. Rameshwar Smgh Chouhan^ R/o< Shanti Nagar^ Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) ^^^- COWNER) ^• :^-"1^t<sa ^^l^ <v>--"" The National Insurance Company Limited^ Through : The Branch Manag^ Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Cj—p^<-^<.^&/."^tf^~ ^I (7./1^5 ^'^•ll:^^^2'^" " >l&<n""/'"'^riNSURER)'- ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1730) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 CHEREINAPTER CALLED THE ACT) ^^^. y %^^, | >>" ^" ^f ^?^?-^TfelW TOTS-^^^N? ?, ^T^JJ~%; P^TP^y ^ OT- ^•4---^1----"-^200 2- (^n^^) ^fe^T ^T^T^ ^ fytZt ^P?T? ^ S.B. Hon'ble Shra Justice N.K. Aaarwal 23.07,2009 Shri Avinash K Mishra, Ad Heard on admission. ocate for the appeltant. The instant appeal ^as been preferred by the appeilant/applicant, seeking 4nhancement of compensation against the award dated 11.12.J2001, passed by lllrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal aiongwith interest @ 9 percent Bastar at Jagdalpur, (for short 'Tribunai') in claim case No. 93/^001 (Ramchandra v. Gurudas & Others), whereby and whereun|jer an amount of Rs. 36,500/- ber annum from 03.02.2001 has been awarded as compensation iti favour ofthe claimant. The brief facts of the ca^e are that, on 21.04.2000, the appeilant whiie coming from Geedam to Jagdalpur in Jeep No. MP- 25-B/1154, which is owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured by the respondent No. 3, met with a'n accident near Dilmjii Road due to rash and negligent driving of' the Jeep and pursuant to sald accident sustained inj'uries. The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, daiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,24,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of said accident. ^:.^:r^ ;.:.^^/^^.<.T<^^^^3-—?;S/'9^—H72GO^—-(.0't.OO.>. •^T^i'^l^iT^ wi? '\.._:-/ -;^-^ --JTqTFf^, "^FfR^T^, I^'-tK-ry ^•. -Ti^" (^ys^) I^lW^fN^T^I ohl^i^"^? "H^^f ^ 'ft^t T?^'^T? ^•5?fe^ S^T The Tribunai, on close sc|-utiny parties, the material avsilable o| the parties, awarded totai amoun| in favour of the appellant, holdl?{ig severaliy iiabie for the said accid^nt. b^en Shri Mishra, counsei for although the Doctor has not looking to the fact that the ^j dislocation of the Heap joint; anc| iower side, this appeal may be ^ enhanced. of the evidence !ed by the the record, and submissions of of Rs. 36,500/- as compensation all the respondents jointly and Ihe appellant would submlt that examined in this matter, but ippeliant sustained fracture and amount awarded is shocking on Slowed and the compensation be The Supreme Court in cafee of A.P. SRTC v. P. Tlhiriipal 1 Reddly, reported in (2005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as 1 under: i "6. After hearing learned i 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 disabiljty certiflcats issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. Th^ Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina th©fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate wasjejected^byjhe Tribuna! for non-examination of th.at doctor. The Tribuna! has determined the physical Sdisabiiitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust ^^ r.-. .i:-3 ^<;vT'---.I 'iJ^^T^T$—?.s/9kS-—f1/200^-- 1.00,00.). •^' .^ ^ [, ^T||<-|^% F^ l1TO^f'fe-"11^' -3^T -q^T (T^f^^^) ^l^l' ^T fe^W n^? SH^T ^qNF '-.../ I^T^R'^fe^ ^^ and fair comDensatiQn. The Hiflh Court erred indisturbing the same and snhancina ths dompensation. Consequently, we aliow this appeai, set asji restore the award of the Clairfis claimant is allowed to withdra\|/ awarded by the Tribunal, withdrawn." lide the impugned order and Tribunal. The respondent- the amount of compensatson it has not already been The Supreme Court in a r^cent Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir ^l (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated tt^e obsen/ations in para 11 : '^)II^M^Ifff 'SITR^ft ^ f^v^ Tf^'^T "^ -3^^ Z-TT^I dictum in case of Rajesh ingh and another, reported in same view with the foilowina "11. The certificate in questi^n in this case was obtained after two years. It is not krjsown as to whether the Civi! Surgeon of the hospitai treajted the appeiiant. On what basis, such a certificate wa^ issued two years after the accident took place is not kniown. The author of the sajd certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himseif, it was not admissibie in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was caiculated 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. !t even does not appegr that th6 contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court , therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. !n 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." ;.-?^^-^;^< ;:^-^i <^;H-^Ta-.->;s/95-—i 1 /2.;^^--^-)0.00, Gi T. e^^'^. i^TmT wRWi." ?ra?" 3?r^r "^R^ (^h^^) 3yCTi<^T'^t^ ^?? ^P^i ^TRte ^^fW ^f^- '^N?;f£rH'RT^' ^f f^l' ^N^T" ^ '^^ s^l^i \. LZ Sahu A Division Bench of thisj Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sahi^ March, 2009, placing its reliancej in the cases referred above held High Court in case of Pracfeep & anothsr vlds order dated 31st upon the dicta of Supreme Court n para 8 as under: "8. In view of the above the cases of A.P. SRTC v. Rajesh Kumar a!ias Raju (supra), the cert'ficate prodi|ced absence of examination of is neither admissible in evl consideration as substantivei compensation in the case." qjuoted dicta of the Apex Court in Thirupal Reddy (supra) and Yudthvlr Singh and another before the Tribuna! in the Doctor issuing the certificate Idence nor can be taken into ievidence for assessment of the tijie in a motor accident claim case, as per Section 1 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, v|/hat is important is that the CQmpensation to be awarded by Ithe Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of each case. !t is neither a bounty nor charity. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, 1 do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal fiied by the appeilant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore llable tp be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. , ^d/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^ n^ ^^ <^:rT<I<T3--''S/95—i 1 /20C-—?..^O.OO.'.