1N_THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURCHHATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAI, (C) N0. - 1^^"^ OF 206^ (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF TF-FE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) APPELLANT CLAIMANT ^^G";°r^^N '^r!^^\^~-- ^3^--"'V Lckhram Markandey, aged about 48 years S/o Jhunkuram Markandey, Occupation- Service (Teacher) R/o- Viilage ^^- - Chhura, Police Station-Chhura, Tehsi!" > ^Gariyabandh, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RE.SPONDENTS P>f6N-CLAIMANTS -k Jeevanlal Seni, aged about 36 years , S/o Gajjulal Sen, Occupation- Driver , R/o- Village - Mudagaon, Police Station- Chhura, Tehsil-Gariyabandh, District - Raipur (C.G.) '2. The New India Insyrasice Co:mpa£iy "' Limited, Through Divisional Managcr; Divisional Offiice, Kutohery Chowk, Raipiir, District- Raipur (C.G.) MEMORANDUM OFAP;PEAlLUNDER_SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHIC LES ACT, 1988 (y\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 1079 of2008 APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS Lekhram Markandey Versus Jeevanlal and anofher NON-CLAIMANTS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. A^arwal, J. PRESENT:- Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput appears on behalf of Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2 ORAL AWARD (24.11.2011) This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband, Dist. Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 72/2006 vide award dated 22.03.2007. 2. As against compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the appellant by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.04.2006, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.31,012/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. •?' 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.04-H/4670 by its driver - Jeevanlal Sen, respondent No.l; appellant sustained injuries in the said accident; respondent No.2/the New India Assurance Company Limited liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of policy conditions: assessed and awarded Rs.31,012/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 4. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: although no Doctor has been examined by the appellant to prove the injuries, but looking to the fact that the appellant sustained multiple injuries, the amount of compensation of Rs.31,012/- awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on lower side, and therefore, this appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced. 5. On the other hand, Shri Shri Sachin Singh Rajpur, learned appearing for respondents No.2 supported the award and submitted: in the facts and circumstances of the case, ."' the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and the appeal deserves to be dismissed as no doctor has been examined to prove injuries. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the -Tribunal including the award impugned. 7. True, the appellant sustained injuries in the motor accident on 08.04.2006 but for the reasons best known to the appellant / claimant no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the number and nature of injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 8. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who 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 High Court committed gross error in overlooking 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 physical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing 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 Kum.ar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 1 1 : " 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 othenvise 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 j '^ .r" '^<;^v. a' no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 10. Admittedly, the claimant, in his own wisdom, did not examine Doctor to prove the injuries sustained in the accident and to prove the resultant loss. In view of the dicta of the above referred casesr the injury report (Ex.P.8) and other documents relating to treatment produced in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the injury report are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for enhancement of compensation in the case. 11. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), in the absence of examination of the Doctor proving the injuries is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case. 12. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the appellant, in the light of the fact that no doctor was examined by the appellant to prove the number and nature of injuries and the resultant loss, in o b my opinion, there is no scope for enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. For the foregoing, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge