1 2025:CGHC:52184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 56 of 2020  Suresh Kumar Patel S/o Duwas Ram Patel Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Gidhpuri , Police Station Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Nandkumar @ Monu Rajak S/o Dhaniram Dhobi Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Okhar, Police Station Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...(Driver And Owner Of Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. -10- D.A.-2446), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. H.D.F.C. Agro General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager , Regional Office, Address Second Floor, Chawla Complex , Devendra Nagar , Raipur , Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh...(Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. -10-D.A.- 2446), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Injured : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/ : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate Driver and Owner Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.10 .2025 1. The appellant/claimant/injured has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 499/2018 dated 27.08.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 42,705/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of injuries sustained by claimant. 2. Facts in brief are that on 14.05.2018 while the claimant along with his SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.28 16:34:55 +0530 2 friend were going to village Bahtara from Gidhpuri, driver of Tractor bearing registration No. C.G. 10 DA 2446 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the vehicle, consequently, they sustained grievous injuries and the pillion rider Lochan Prasad succumbed to injuries. The age of the claimant was 30 years and he was working as Electrician and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is also pleaded that he suffered permanent disability on account of injuries, and thus, the claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- with interest. The driver/owner as well as Insurance company filed reply to the claim application and denied the averments made therein. Learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/injured would argue that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the injured at lower side. She would further submit that the claimant was working as Electrician and earning Rs. 10,000/-, but the learned Tribunal has assessed income of the claimant Rs. 200/- per day and Rs. 6000/- per month. She would contend that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages admissible to skilled labour according to minimum wages matrix. She would further contend that on other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation. She would pray to enhance the compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 would oppose. She would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and the claimant failed to examine the treating Doctor. She would further submit that the disability certificate has not been produced before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has honoured medical bills presented by the appellant. She would contend that 3 the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the claimant has not examined Doctor to prove the permanent disability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305 in para 11 held as under :- “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.” 7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189 in para 6 held 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 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 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. Consequently, we allow 4 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.” 8. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,400/- for loss of earning as the claimant remained hospitalized from 14.05.2018 to 18.05.2018; medical bills Rs. 20,305/-, pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/-, special diet and attendant Rs. 10,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs. 42,705/-. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the claimant failed to examine the Doctor to prove disability part. I do not find any scope to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant