-1- 2025:CGHC:49773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1664 of 2024 1 - Bahorik Dhuri S/o. Shri Rivan Dhuri Aged About 50 Years Represented By Smt. Laxhmin Dhuri, W/o. Bahorik Dhuri, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village - Ward No. 3, Chulghat Road, Surighat Takhatpur, P.S. Takhatpur, Tehsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Arjun Yadav S/o. Dashrath Yadava Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village Barela, P.S. Jarhagaon, Tehsil And District - Mungeli (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. First Floor, Rama Trade Center, Near Of Rajiva Plaza Near For Old Bus Stand, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Deleted As Per Annexure A/1) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Zone Office, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, Near Of Rajiva Plaza Near For Old Bus Stand, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr.Himanshu Yadu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Adv. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vishwanath Shrivas, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.10.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Claim Case -2- No.64/2021 dated 03.04.2024 whereby, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.6,91,067/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application on account of injury sustained by the claimant. 3) The brief facts of the present case are that on 18.01.2017, the claimant Bahorik Dhuri was going from Village Jarhagaon to Takhatpur on his motorcycle. Near Awaspara Bareli, the driver of the offending vehicle tractor bearing registration No.C.G.10A.E.4761 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorbike of the claimant, consequently, he sustained grievous injuries over various parts of the body. He was admitted at Mahadev Hospital, Bilaspur. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Jarhagaon. The claimant remained hospitalized at Mahadev Hospital Bilaspur from 18.01.2017 to 06.03.2017 and thereafter in Charan Nursing Home Takhatpur from 08.03.2017 to 04.05.2017. The claimant was examined by Medical Board and disability certificate vide Ex.A/10-C was issued by the Orthopedic Surgeon to the extent of 80%. The claimant placed on record medical bills vide Ex.A/12 to A/226 to the tune of Rs.5,48,067/-. Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.18,000/- for loss of income, Rs.50,000/-, for medical, transport and diet, Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- for loss of future medical expenses and thus, awarded sum of Rs.6,91,067/-. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the learned Tribunal has not considered disability certificate Ex.A/10-C while assessing the compensation. He would further submit that for loss of earning, the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- per month only. He would contend that on other -3- conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount and thus, he would pray to enhance the compensation. 5) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Yadu. Mr. Nande would submit that the disability certificate vide Ex.A/10-C was issued by the Orthopedic Surgeon and the said Medical Officer has not been examined by the claimants before the learned Tribunal. He would further submit that the claimant failed to examine treating doctor to establish the fact that he had sustained grievous injuries. It is also argued that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7) The disability certificate Ex.A/10-C has been issued by the Orthopedic Surgeon. Ex.A/10-C would show that the disability certificate was not issued by the Medical Board. In the certificate, the disability of the appellant/claimant is assessed to the extent of 80% but the doctor, who is Orthopedic Surgeon, who issued certificate has not been examined before the learned Tribunal. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Alias Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in 2008(7)SCC 305 while dealing with the similar issue held that unless the author of the certificate examined, the said certificate was not admissible in evidence. Relevant para 11 is reproduced herein below : -4- “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 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 no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” 9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.P. SRTC Vs. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in 2005(12) SCC 189, relevant para 6 is reproduced herein below : “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 Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the 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.” 10) Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar(supra), learned Tribunal has rightly ignored the disability certificate vide Ex.A/10-C. 11) With regard to compensation on other conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 12) Learned Tribunal has honoured all medical bills, pathology bills submitted by the appellant/claimant. For pain and suffering, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- and on other conventional heads, Rs.50,000/-. -5- 13) Considering the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha