:\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D!VSSJON BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRS RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J IVSIsc. Appeal (C) No. 803 of 2008 ABBeiJant Cialmant Respondents Non-cjaimants 1. Ku. Pooja D/o Shri Sukhnandan Vaishnav, aged about 06 years (Minor), Through her father Sukhnandan Vaishnav S/o Shri Krishna Das Vaishnav, R/o Vitiage-Chhapora, P.S. Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Ram Niranjan Sharma, S/o Ramkumar Sharma, R/o Ward No.1, Nadipar, Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) (Driver, Vehicie No. C.G.10/ZC-0264) Ajay S/o Jainarayan Jaisawal, R/o Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) (Owner, Vehicle No. CG10/ZC-0264) Branch Manager, United india Snsurance Company Ltd., Branch - Rajendra Nagar, BiSaspur, Dlstt. Bilaspur (C.G.) MisceiJaneous AppeaJ under Section 173 of Motor^Veh|c!es_Act Present : Shri Indrasen Sahu, counsei forthe appeliant. Shri Dilip Dubey, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counseS for respondent No.3. ORDER (16th June, 2011) ^^^^ P a»8rt^ The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8 JVIotor Accident Clalms Tribunal, Biiaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.05.2008, passed in Claim Case No.73/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,00,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant Pooja, a minor giri aged about 6 years by filing a claim petition through her father Sukhnandan under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for the injuries sustained by her sn the motor accident on 27.08.2006, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.80,000/- ascompensation atong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petitlon till the date of actuai payment. 3) Shri indrasen Sahu, iearned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.80,000/- only, though the claimant sustained multiple serious jnjuries including fractures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent disability to the extent of 15%. 4) Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counse! for respondent No.3, the United india Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicie truck on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunai cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement sn this appeal. /i^i g^ ^^KS^5^W (Ki^ '^_^ 5) Shri Diiip Dubey, learned counse! for respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle truck afso supported the award. 6) Before the Tribunal the ciaimant examined only one witness i.e. her father AW/1 Sukhnandan. For the reasons best known to the claimant and her father, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeliant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. 7) The question whether the medical certiflcate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be reiied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment 6f the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC189, 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 flnd 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 percent. The Hiah Court committed gross error in overjookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribuna! for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabiiitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr KM Mitra 1 ^ail ,i •^. :^^^ and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hjah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequentiy, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ctaims Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is aliowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foliowing observations in para 11 : "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 piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himseif. it was not admissibie 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 'ne 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 Hlgh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais hrought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appticability of the ^ /r^ ^ ^^ •-?z 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 medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the clalmant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors who had issued those certificates in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar a!ias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra) cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunat. 11) The appeal, filed by the appellant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is tiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma