HIG COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ()L DIVIsION BENcH ( conAM: HON’BLE sHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, cJ HON’BLE $HRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 606 of 2003 Smt. Vijay Laxmi, wife of Sharad Claimant Shrivastava aged about 34 years APPELLANT reSIdent of Ponce Colony, Geedam District Dantewada (CG) VERSUS Dinesh Chouhan son of Ramchandra Chouhan, aged about 25 years, resident of Near New Bus Stand Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG). 1B Sukalu S/o Raghunath driver resident of Gangamuda para Talab Tekn Jagdalpur (CG) 2 Munna La! son of B.L. Shrivastava, resident of Itwari Bazar Ward, Jagdalpur (CG). 3 United India Insurance Company Limited Near Anupama Talkies Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG) MISC. APPEAL‘UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Respondents Non-applicants Present: Ms Seema Srngh learned counsel forthe appellant None for respondents No 1 1B and 2 Shn Dashrath Gupta and Shrl Sanjay Gupta learned counsel for respondent No 3 ORDER ‘h (09m December, 2010) H 'rh" The following order of' the Court was Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant! claimant — Smt. Vijay Laxmi is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the. Second Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 31.03.2000, passed in Claim Case No.55/1 999. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,50,000l- claimed by the appellant/claimant by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 22.01.1999, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,062/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest ‘@ 12% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Ms. Seema Singh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.6,052l- only though the appellantf claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 4) Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 United India insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimant could not establish that the injuries sustained by herin the motor accident resuited in any permanent disability, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself aiune as AW1 in support of her claim. For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by her in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) 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 te assessment of the compensation came up for consideration h before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 scc 189, wherein it was observed in para 6as under: “6. fter hearing leamed counsel for the respondent~claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court; we find that there was no iustiflcation 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 tat 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. KM. Mitre 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 ofthe Ciaims —'W A h withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foiiowing 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 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. lt is also not known as to whether he was competentto issue such a certificate. It even does not - appear thatthe contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the HighCourt. 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 pennitted to be raised . for the first time.” 8i TribunaL The respondent~ciaimant is aHowedc/ a The medical certiticates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctor who had issued those .. ., l certificates; in view of the above quoted dicta of the A urt in p o the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, thetefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeai tiled by the appeiiant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is Iiabie tc be'dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- i 3‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha Sd/- / Judge Chief Justice . \‘ subbu 3 i