APPELLANT/ CLAIMANT: ^ Hon'ble S.B. £NTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fC) No. ^SO /2007 Kumari Kusumbati, D/o Mangtu, Caste Muria, Aged about 13 Years, Through Guardian Father Mangturam , S/o Budhru Muriya, Aged about 40 Years, R/o Bastar Manjhipara, Tehsii Jagdalpur, District BastarC.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ 1. Bhimsingh Parihar, NON-APPLICANTS: ^ S/o Keshavsingh Parihar, Aged about 35 Years, R/o Village Bastar, Tehsil Jagdalpur, °"' ^f District Bastar, (C.G.) (Driver) ^•'<\j^ 2. Rajendra Singh Parihar, S/o Pratap Singh ^" S^ Parihar, R/o Village Bastar, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (C.G.) . ' 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through the Branch Manager, Jhankar Talkies Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 y^} ^ ^ rc—78 ?qT^^' ^ -f^N^ ??'^T >TI^VI ^^i^ -3^,^n^ir^^ •^Tri^^^-r-^J^Tre^ •UU^***!*" A^'^5&'—-BT:20e^ W¥TTT^F (^f^?^) <^Tf^R ^f^ 3-r^71 '^F^fe^^ WRT^ft ^f ft^t TJ:W?T< ^ ^rffW S^l S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwal 05.10.2009 Shri Alok Dewangan, Adj^ocate for the appellant. Shri Manoj Mishra, Advo(3ate for respondent No. 1 & 2. Stiri Sourabh Sharma, Ajdvocate for respondent No.3. Heard on IA No. 1, app!i<j?ation for condonatlon ofdeiay. On due consideration, am satisfied that the counsel for appeliant has succeeded in ex|3laining the delay caused in filing this appeai. Accordingiy IA No| 1 is aliowed and delay caused in filing the appeal is hereby conc|oned. Heard on admission. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, seeking enhancement of compjensation against the award dated 03.02.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur (for short 'Tribunai') in claim case No. 386/05, whereby and whereunder an amount 6f Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest @ 6 percent per annum has been awarded as compensation in favour of the appeitant. The brief facts of the case according to appeilant are that, on 19.05.2004, the appeilant whiie returning back to his home sitting in a Tractor bearing registration No. CG-04/ZG-6544, met with an accident, sustained injuries. ^ !'P^Xf'7'"^.rf?''SS<s??''!V>!^ ^' —78 :?TRTF:T7T,' ^^W j^,' fe'fR-fy '%BRW^§^B5F ••^::20^r ^ry^^^ (-^3S^) .^T^ U71 f^^ ^^i ^^TCT '^n^: ^RT?^T ^f^f a-T^T '^P^f^sf 'qp^ff "^T f^^t 7^?^ ^stf^r 3??^i 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. Mitr^ and awarded a just and fair compensation. The HighJCourt erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the ^ompensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set ^side the impugned order and restore the award of tie Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is alloy compensation awarded b^ already been withdrawn." The Supreme Court in a| Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir{ (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in que^ after two years. It is not |ved to withdraw the amount of ^ the Tribunal, if it has not Irecent dictum in case of Rajesh ISingh and another, reported in the same view with the following tion in this case was obtained 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 disabjlity at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or othenA/ise is not known. It is aiso 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 no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." '"•ws^asssssss'y^f?"'' -.;'?-^:^ (^ .^T^, TT! 1^^:: 7?^I ':?T^H ^?t3~ (^-^. ^ '3^ ^w'^, ^^w^ f^lwy *««fWl<gftW^» •^.2QO.: ^^ TRr^"(.^^^T)" ^^1W ^7T ^r^ A Division Bench of thi? Kumar Sahu vs. Sarupa Sah^i March, 2009, placing its reli< Court in the cases referred abdve "8. In view of the abov^ inthe cases of AP. SRT^ and Rajesh Kumar alia^ another (supra), the Tribunal in the absence issuing the certificate is can be taken into consid< for assessment ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded '^bl^!^^^ ^SH^i '^'fe^ft Tt^$H ^3?R^T3?T^T High Court in case of Pradeep & ano^ervide order dated 31st nce upon the dicta of Supreme held in para 8 as under: quoted dicta of the Apex Court v. P. Thirupa! Reddy (supra) Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and c^rtificate produced before the of examination of the Doctor neSither admissible in evidence nor l^ration as substantive evidence corTfpensation in the case." in a motor accident clai^n case, as per Section 168 ofthe what is important is that the by the Courts/Tribunal should be Sahu just and proper compensatiori in the facts and circumstance of each case. It 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 filed by the appeilant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore iiable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge yw^:-:yw^,w::»^ #%w«E^?-<s«-K-i?-ea