s HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR MISC, APPEAL N0.455 OF 2004 APPELLANT fCIaimantl Shanti Bai, W/o Shri Bhagelaram, aged about 50 years, R/o Viilage - Kohalatola, Tahsil - ChhuiWiadan, Distriet - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) . Versys fffiSPONDENTS 1 NON- APPLICANTS Dhhelabai Widow of Late Shri Dayaram Chands!, Aged about 65 years, 2. KMshan Lat S/o Late Shri Dayaram Chandel, Aged about 55 yars, 3. Ramktshan S/o Late Shri Dayaram Chandel, Aged about 52 years, 4. Rishl Kumar S/o Late Shri Oayaram Chandel, ^ed about48years, The above named Fespondents are R/o Vitlage Kanimera, Tahstl - Ohhuikhadan, Distrot Rajnandgaon APPEALUNDERSECTION 173 OF THE M07aRVgtMSt£ ^T. 1888. (Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Dashrath Prajapatt, counsel for the appellant. Noneforthe respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23rd day of Mareh,2010) The instant appeat has been preferred by the appeltant for seeki'ng enhaneement of compensation againsi the award dated 10-03-2004 passed by'Additlonal Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal Khalragarh, Dlstt. Rajnandgaon {forshQrt the Tribunal') in claim case No. 23/2003 wherebyand whereunderanamount of Rs. 14,275/- along with interest@ 9% per annum,fFwn thedate of application tilt its recovery has been awarded as eompensatlon in favour ofthe appellant. n? q) a'-'t 'rissir".:'•^[ZBtiaii^swT '^fSiff^ 2. The brief facts of the case according to appellant are that, on 21-06-2003, the appetlant met with an accident by oftending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. M.P. 24-F/1621 and Trolley bearing registration No. M.P. 24-F/1622 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver ofthe tractor and pursuant to sald accident, the appeltant sustained grlevous injuries. 3. The appellant preferred an appllcation before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehtetes Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,42,000/- for the injuries sustained by her on account ofthe said accldent. 4. The Tribunat on a ctose scrutiny of the evldence led, materiat placed, and submissions made, awarded total amount of Rs. 14,275/- along with Interest @ 9% per annum fFom the date of applieation titl its recovery, as compensation in favour of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel Tor the appellant would aibmit that although fhe Doctor has nof been examlned in this matter, tsut looking to the fact that the appellant sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded by the Tribunal fs shockingly on lower side, this appeal may be altowed and the compensatton be enhanced. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appeltant and pemsed the record. 7. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupal Reddy, reported In (2008) 12 SCC.189, observed (n para 6 as under: °6. After hearing tearned counsel for the responc(ent- claimant who made an attemptto support the order of the High Court. Ws find thatthere was ne juMfication for the High Courtto rely on the disability certiffcate issued by Dr, Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court commilted gross error in bverlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- examination of thatdoetor. The Tribunat has determined the physical disabilHy 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. Consequehtly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant fe allowed to withdraw the amountof 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 Ra}u v. Yudhvir Singh and anothCT, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the followir® observations in para 11: "11. The certificate In question in this case was obtained after two yeare. It is not known as to whettier the Civil Surgeonof the hospital treated the appellanfc On what basis, such a certificate was issued two yeare after ttie accklent took place is not known. The author of the said certfficate had not been examined. Unless the author of e certificate examihed himself, it was not admissible in evidence. WheUier 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 of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has noapptication, Uie 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 Pracfeep Kumar Sahu vs. Sararf»Sahu & aimther vide order dated 31st March, 2009, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referred above held in para 8 as under: t- . "8. in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. Sl¥TCv. P. Thlrupal Reddy (siipra) and Rajesh Kumar allas Rafu v. Yudhvlr Singh and another (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examifiation of the Doctor issuing the certificate fs neittieradmissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideratiQn as substantwe evidence for assessmentofthe compensation in the case." 10. Admittedly, the claimant in hlsown wisdom did not examine Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the awident and j^:, ^s, .^ 4 to prove the resultant loss. In view of the dtota of the above referred cases, the injury reports, certiflcates produced, in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the injury reports, certiflcates are ne'rther admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as sut)stantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. 11. In a motoraccident clalm case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. 12. For the reasons mentfoned hereinabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation aivarded by the Tribunal. 13. 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 UiUii 3ilii^^:lffi^