1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 993 of 2019 1 - Arvind Kushwaha S/o Chhatrapal Kushwaha Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Rumdhura, Thana - Gohan, District Jalon, Uttar Pradesh., At Present Address - Bhartiya Nagar, Thana - Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Swapnil Sharma S/o Rajkumar Sharma Aged About 23 Years R/o Ring Road No.2 Parijaat Cassel, M.I.G. 18, Thana - Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner / Driver Of Car Bearing No. C.G. 10 Fa/3560), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - United India Insurance Company Limited Vyapar Vihar, Beside I C I Bank, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurance Company Of Car Bearing No. C.G. 10 Fa/3560), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/claimant : Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Laxmi Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Mr. Bennoon, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.12 .2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that it is an appeal filed by the claimant with delay of 296 days. He would further submit that the appellant has explained the delay part properly. He would pray to condone the delay. 3. Heard. 2 4. Having considered the submissions made by Mr. Jain and the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. 5. Delay of 296 days in filing instant appeal is hereby condoned. 6. Heard on admission. 7. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the learned Ninth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 481/2016 dated 24.04.2018, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 5,41,100/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on account of injuries sustained by claimant. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that on 25.03.2015 near Kali Mandir at about 10:30 p.m. while claimant was returning home, driver of offending car bearing registration No.C.G.10/FA/3560 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed him, resultantly he sustained grievous injuries over head, abdomen, hands and legs. He would further submit that he was admitted in CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. It is contended that on account of injuries, the claimant suffered disability. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased Rs.2,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would further contend that on conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has granted meager compensation. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that the claimant failed to examine the treating doctor to prove seriousness of injuries or disability certificate. They would contend that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 3 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Admittedly, the claimant sustained injuries in accident but he failed to examine the treating doctor. The medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs.4,13,200/- have been honoured by the learned Tribunal. Further, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.36,000/- for loss of income; Rs.10,000/- for conveyance; Rs.15,000/- for special diet; Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering ; Rs.10,000/- for attendant and Rs.6,900/- for damage to the property. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305 has discussed the issue of non-examination of medical officer/ treating doctor. Relevant 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.” 13. 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 4 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 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.” 14. As the claimant failed to examine treating doctor, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the claimant failed to establish nature of injuries. Learned Tribunal has further awarded just and proper amount on conventional heads. 15. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 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