H!GH COURT OF CHHATTHSGARH AT BELRSPUQ DWImGN BENCH CORAM: FION’BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HGN’BLE $HR§ SUNEL KUMAR SWHA, J. Misc Appeal (C) N0.103 of 2008 Apmicant Shatrughan Singh Kamde, son of Samay La! Kamde, aged abcut 47 years, residence of Cio Sushii Kumar Meshram Ganjpara, Behind Godha Dai Min, Poiice $tation Pmgacn, Durg, Tahsi; and Diatrfct Burg, Chhattisgarh AppeHant VERSU$ Non—aummants Jasveer Singh, sen of Punna Singh Punjab%, aged about 33 years, residence of $antra Badi, Behind Gurudwara, Q No.213, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Taheil and District Durg, Chhaiiisgarh (Driver l Owner) Respondents 2 The New india insurance Company Limited, Infront of Project Automobiie, Power House Bhiiai, District burg, Chhattisgarh iiggeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicie Act. 1388 ’Present : Shri CJK Rae, counsei forthe appeiiant. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER {13“ Septembor, 2999) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appeiiant Shatrughan is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short, ‘the Tribunal) vide award dated 18.G9.200? passed in Claim Case No.50/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.32,89,0DO/-, maimed by ”the appellant I claimant by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in lhe motor aociclent on 14‘04‘2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.78,l45/— as compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs‘78,145/- @ 9% per annum on the insurer’s failure to depoeit the amount of compensation within two months of the passing of the award. 3) Shri CJK Rae, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensation of Re.78,145/. awarded by the Tribunai is too tow as the appellant / claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined two witnesses (AW/1 Mahesh Kumar Patel and AW/2 Satrughan) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who r issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupai Ready reported in (2005) 12 $CC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing iearned counsel for the respondent — ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification tor the High Court to rely on the disabiiity certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. 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 Trihunal has determined the physical disability at 15 Qer cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitre and awarded a iuet 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 Tribunair The respondent-claimant is aiiowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn.” (‘r The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raiu Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2mm) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the following observations in para i1 : “1 1. 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 \tmmm m. the appeliant. 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. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was caicuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’e Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. it is aiso 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 Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribune! ae atso 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 f’aoie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” 7) In View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupai Raddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra). the medical certificate and the disabiiity certificate produced by the appeiiant/ciaimant before the ”i’ribunai without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8) The Tribunal, however, appears to have erred in not awarding any interest to the claimant on the above amount of Kt padma compensation of Rs.78,145/‘ and in directing omy canditiona! payment of intere$t on'the insurer’s fai‘ure t0 deposit the amount of compensation Within two months, of the pacsing of the award. The above direction passed by the Tribunal has certainly deprived the ciaimant of his right to get interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.78,145l—‘ in our opinion, the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in the order sheet dated 13.07.2007 do not gusttfy non—awarding of interest to the ciaimant. Q) We, therefore, award interest of Rs.5,000/— to the ciaimant on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 10) For the foregoing reasons, the appeai fiied by the appeiiant/ ciaimant tor enhancement of the compensation is aiiowed in part. Whiie maintaining the amount of compensation of Rs.78,’i45/- awarded by the Tribunai, a sum of Rs.6,000/— is awarded to the ciaimant towards interest on the above amount of Compensation. it) Respondent No.2 the New indie insurance Company Limited is granted two months‘ time for depositing the sum of Rs.5,0GO/- before the concerning Claims Tribunai. Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Sd/~ Judge chief Justice 12) No order as to costs.