•^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Di"!S!QN BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appeilant Ciaimant Misc Appeal (C»N0.970 of 2008 Maqsood Ahmad Quareshi, S/o Mashooq Ahmad Quareshi, Aged about 49 years, R/o Behlnd Swastik Bakery, r^-r^ <^\y ResDondents ts Baijnathpara Raipur, VERSUS Lailt Tiwari, S/o Chandrashekhar Tiwari, Aged about 37 yesrs, Ri'o New Shanti Nagar, Gorkha Colony, tonker, CG (Driver of the Vehide Bus Bearing Regd No.CG-04/E-241) Kamaijeet Singh, S/o Mahendra Singh Through Office of Mahendra Travels, New Bus Stand Pandri Raipur, CG (Owner of the Vehicle Bus Bearing Regd No.CG-04/E-241) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kutohery Chowk, Madina Manzit Raipur CT (tnsurer of the Vehicle Bus Bearing Regd No.CG-04/E-241) Shiv Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late ML Jailswal, R/o Moti Talabpara, Jagdaipur, District Bastar, CG (Owner of the Vehicle Metador Bearing Regd No.CG 17/H 0390) United India tnsurance Company Limited, Office at Jagdaipur, District Bastac, CG (Insurer of the Vehicle Metador Bearing Regd No.CG 17/H 0390) Apoeal under Section 173 ofthe fnotw Vehicle Act. 1988 Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajasharma, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri P Dutta, counse! for respondent No.3. None for respondents No.4 though served. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.5. (14th September, 2089) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Maqsood Ahmad Quareshi is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 14 Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.01.2008 passed in Claim Case No.47/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-, claimed by the appellant / claimant by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act for the Injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.09.2006, the Trlbunal awarded a total sum of Rs.27,648/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the ctaim petition till the date of actuat payment. 3) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.27,64Q/- only, though the apDetlanVclaimant sustained multipte serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disabillty. 4) Before the Tribunal, the ctalmant examined himself alone as AW/1 in support of his clalm. 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. 3 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certiflcate 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. Thirupal Reddy reported in (200S) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed In para 6 as under: "6. After hearlng learned counsel for the respondent - claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we flnd that there was no justtfication for the High Court to rely on the disability certlflcate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlooklna the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disabllitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mltra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The 1-ligh Court erred in disturbinq the same and^ enhancinq the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aslde the impugned order and restore the award of the Ctaims Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is allowed to wtthdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if It has not already been wthdrawn." 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Slngh and another, reported In (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certlficate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It Is not known as to whether the Civll Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took ptace is not known. The author of the sald certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. itwas not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensatlon 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 ralsed 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 partles. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensatfon Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for thefirsttime." 7) tn view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medical certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be ^ taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensatlon in the case. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant / claimant for enhancement of the.compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. — _ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge padma