HIGH COURT OF THECHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON'BLE MR. JUST1CE R.N. CHANDRAKAR: APPEU-ANT M.A.No. 382 of 2005 Asim Vishvas S/o. Late S.N. Vishvas, Aged about 45 years, R/o D.C. Road, Mahavir Ward, Ambikapur, Tahsit Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Laluva Ram Yadav, Aged about 45 Years, S/o Dharmjeet Yadav, R/o Village Ranptirkala, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2 Dharbharan Das Vaishnav S/o. Murli Das Vaishnav, Aged about 30 years, R/o Mudaisa, P.S. Jamnagar, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3 Oriental Insurance Company, Branch, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Appeal uncler Section 173ofthe|VlotorVehiclesAct, 1988 Appearance: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocates forthe appellant. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate for respondent No.3. ORDER (17.01.2011) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. (1) The appellantfclaimant- Asim Vishvas has flled this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 17/2004 by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ambitepur, District Surguja, (C.G.), vide award dated 05.02.05. a^s^'s? "%1 ~~<^ /[ "'- t^ .A.No,382 of 2005 (2) The appellant filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.06.1 997. (3) Though, the appellant pleaded that he sustained various injuries including fracture and he also suffered permanent disabtement, but no doctor was examined by him to substantiate the above contentions. Infact, the appellant only examined himself as A.W.1. (4) The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence lead before it, awarded Rs. 1845/- towards medical expenses; Rs. 5.000/- for not recejving promotion in due time and Rs. 18,155/- towards pain and suffering, conviennce and for the injuries ustained by the appellant. The Tribunal, thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 25.000/- as compensation to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.06.1997. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9/% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of actual payment. (5) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 25.000/- only, whereas, the appellant sustained muttiple serious injuries in the motor accident. (6) For the reasons best known the appellant no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. (7) The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied ,.»-^ '^^*$;N. MANo. 382 of 2005 upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in case of A.P. SRTC Vs.P. Thirupal Reddv. reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein itwas observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing teamed counsel for the respondent-ctaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Gourt 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. ne^Hj^CowtcpmmW^aross enwmoYeilQ^asaSwJact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was zejected Ay the Tjibunal for non-examination of fhat doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical dLsabilrtv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deBosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a jyst and fair compensaUQa The_l-jjgh Court erred in dJstyrbLng the same and enhancing J:hej;om@ensation. Consequently.we allow this appeat, 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." (8) The Apex Court in Raiesh Kumar alias Raiu Vs. Yudhvir Sinah and another. reported in(2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same viewwith the foltowing 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. Unjess the aythor pf the certifioate 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. tt is atso 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 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act which, in ouropinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." (9) As we have already mentioned, no Doctor was examined before the Tribunal to prove the fact that the appetlant/claimant either sustained fracture or he suffered M.A.No. 382 pf 2005 any permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by him. Even the documents (certificates including the medical examination report) filed by him were notproved. (10) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC Vs. P. Thirupal Reddv (Suora) and Raiesh Kumar alias Raiu Vs. Yudhvir Sinah and another (Supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substanth/e evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case. (11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. (12) The appeal filed by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (13} No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge