HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: APPELLANT Claimant HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Apperil No. 494 of 2003 Smt. Tara Devi, w/o Awadhram Bharadwaj, aged about 38 years, r/o. Dharampura, Jagdalpur, C.S.E.B. Qtr. No. 10, Ramji Colony, Aghnupur, Chitrakoot Road, Jagdalpur, Bastar (C.G.) ^ LC VERSUS Respondents 1. Sushil Kumar Mahobia, occupation Opposite Party Bus owner, Sai Travete, (Bus No. M.P.-26/C-5593), Bus Stand, Ratanpur, R/o. Ratanpur, distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 Israr Ali, aged about 32 years, S/o. Riyaz Ali, Caste-Muslim, R/o. Idgah Chowk, near Police Line, Btlaspur (Driver of Bus No. M.P.-26/C-5593) 3 The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch OfRce Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Distt. BHaspur (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, leamed counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Sentor Counsel with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (15th December, 2010) •:•-'-r^s-Sr^S^^'. .xi-"s;i:"^. 'l :'€-'a' 1 \b^Ji ^^--, ^r^-^..^ ^. The following order ofthe Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ claimant - Smt. Tara Devi is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.02.2003, passed in Claim Case No.37/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 02.05.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the ctaim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Smt. Renu Kochar, leamed counsel for the appellant * vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low cbmpensation of Rs.25,000/- onty though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 30%. 4) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New 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 her in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability, the compensation awarded by the ^^, ^. -.f,^^, \ Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two witnesses including herself (AW1 Tara Devi and AW2A.R. Bharadwaj) 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 in|uries 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 certiflcate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration beforethe Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy,reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent-claimant who made an attempt to support theorder of,the High Court, we find 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 per cent. The Hiqh Court committed aross error in overlookina 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 phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a - ^-,. '^^^:^? iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, 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." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dtetum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvlr Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with 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. Unless the author of the certiflcate examined himself. it was not admissible jn 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 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 appltoability of the 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." p~i ,.J 8) The medteal certificate and the disability certificate produced by the claimant 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 v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu