HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DJVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRIRAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No.1382 of 2007 IN»NSMB^ Appellants Respondents 1 Non-applicantNo.1 Non-applicant No.2 2 Non-applicant No.3 3 Neera Bai widow of late Nepal aged about 50 years caste Bhariya, r/o Pandaripani P.0. Gopalpur, P.S. Darri, Tah. Katghora, district Korba. Vijay Kumar son of late Sohan Lal, aged about 30 years, caste Bhariya, r/o Pandaripani post Gopalpur, P.S. Darri, Tah. Katghora, district Korba C.G. VERSUS Bahoran Lal aged about 27 years, son of Ramayan Lal fDriver) Ramayan Lal son of Chamra Rai, aged not described (Owner) Both are the resident of Gopalpur, P.S. Darri, Tah. Katghora, distt. Korba C.G. National Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, through the Branch Manager, Branch Office, Kosabadi, distt. Korba Tah. and distt. Korba through the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Korba C.G. (Insurer) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Kalyan Kalamkar, counsel for the appellants. Shri S.R.J. Jaiswat, counsel for respondents No.f & 2. Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for respondent No.3. ^' .,—^, 'fi^^M^^A ^ '^•^•^^^^ li .^j / ^ w^' ORDER (07th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, district Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.08.2007, passed in Claim Case No.77/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.44,63,832/- claimed by claimant Sohan Lal by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.07.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Kalyan Kalamkar, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- only though the claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 30%. 4) Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle, on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to the claimant. '^ te 5) Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 Bahoran Lal and No.2 Ramayan Lal, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle also supported the award. 6) For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant i^ the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 7) The question whether the medical certificate 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 before the 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 the order 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 Hiah 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 basjs of the deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the comDensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- claimant is allowed to withdrawthe amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." , 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same 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 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 certificate 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. It is also 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 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." 9) The medical 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 awarded by the Tribunal. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. _—-—^ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge nimmi