HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DiVSSiONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GURTA, C.J. HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCKANDRAKAR,J Misc ADpeaS (Cl No. 1400 of 2007 Appellant Ashok Kumar,jS/o Premdas Satnami, Ciaimant Agedabout40years,CasteSatnamJ, Occupation Dnver, R/o Viliaae - Bhomsara Thana nandghat Tehsil Nawagarh, District Durg, CG Present Address — Viiiage Chandkhuri, Thana Hirri, Tehsil & District- Bilaspur (CG) Respondents Non-applicants Versus 1. Suresh Kumar S/o Darshan Singh Chauhan, aged about 26 years, Caste Rajput, Occupation Driv.er, R/o viliage New Bus stand, Bemetara, Thana & Tehsil Bemetara, Dlstrict Durg (CG) 2. Rekhraj Mundra, S/o Late Ranidan Mundra, sgedi about 32 years, Caste Baniya, Occupation owner of VehicSe, R/o yiijage jward No.9, Ganjpara, Bemetara, Thana & Tahsil Bemetara, District-Durg (CG) 3. The Nationai Insurance'Co. Ltd.,Durg Branch, Through its Branch IVIanager, Thana, Tehslt & District Dui^ (CG) Appeal under Section 173 of the MotorVehldeAct.1888 Present : Shri Vimiesh Bajpai, cpunseljfor the appeilant. SVSs Morisha Chhatri, counsel for^-espondents No.1 & 2. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsej for respondent No.3. QRDER (22naFebruary,20ie) The foHowing order of the; Court was^ passed by !\ ^'^.".: • •' . /- 1 '•• : s.: . . Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ffi. '•w ^ Learned counsei for the parties are hard on 1A No.1 /2007, a petition for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideratlon, 1A No. 1/2007 is ailowed and thedelay of three days in fiiing the appeat Is hereby condoned. 3) Learned counsel for the parties are heardon admission. 4) Appellant Ashok Kumar Is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Bemetara, Distt Durg (forshort 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.08.2007 passed in Clalm Case No.24/2006. 5) As against the compensation of Rs,9,30,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing aciaim petition under S'ection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.01.2006, theTribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.38,659/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flling qf the cSaifn petition till the date of actual paymerst. 6) Shri Vimlesh Bajpal, learned counsel for the. appeliant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.38,659/- only, though the appeliant/claimant sustained multiple serioys injuries inGiuding fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disabillty. 7) From para 13 of the award we gather that the claimants did not examine any doctor before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by him irt^the motor \ accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. 8) The questionwhether the medica! certificate produced by We claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certlficate can be relied upon as substantive evidence fortheassessmentofthecompensationcameupforconsideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P.Thirypal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it as observed in para6asUnder: "6. After hearing learned cdunsel for the respondent -ctaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that theFe was nojustification for the High Courtto reiy on the disabiJity certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compe'nsation by treating the injury as permanent disabitity to be 45 percent. The Hiah Oourtcommittea aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunai for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the Dhvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair combensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, we atlow thls appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award ofthe Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is aliowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribynal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 9) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case'^of Rajesh A. 1/." '.".- •"'!11:1.,:,''.." •...::... ..^'.•'' •- Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in fw (2008) 7 SCC 308. reiterated thesame view with the following 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 ofthe hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the sald certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provlsions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise Is not known. It isalso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certlflcate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunai ,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 ComDensatson Act which, in our opinion, ex fac/e has no appjication, the same, in our oplnlon, cannot be permitted to be raised for the fsrst time." 10) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. ThlrupaS Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar allas Raju' Vs Yudhvlr Singh and another (supra), the medical certificate produced by the appellanVdaimant beforethe Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, y^ cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in thecase. 11) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal, flled bythe appeliant/ctaimant for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, is liable tobe dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. SdA aiiefJustice padma Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^. ^.. "