HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR1 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No.243 of 2005 Shashibhusan Mishra, son of Shri Shiv Kumar, aged about 52 years, Occupation - Service, Caste - Brahman, Resident, Post Office And PS Vishrampur, Tah Surajpur, Distt Surguja (Chhattisgarh) The New Indi^ Insurance Company limited, through Divisional Manager; The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, GE Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 Vikram Singh, son of Occupation - Vehcle Owner, C/o Kamal Motors Ring Road No.2, Manpuri, Distt . Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 Santosh Kumar Sahu, son of Narayan Prasad Sahu, aged about 25 years, Occupatjon - \vehicle Driver, resident of village Nawagaon, Jodi, PS Ratanpur, Distt Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Present : Shri Ashish Surana, counsel for the appellant. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respon'dent No.1. |St ,20 "••'•^^;:.^' Nl The foltowlng order of the Court was passed by Appellant Shashibhusan iVlishra is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional IVIotor Accident Claims Tribunai, Surajpur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide av.'ard dated 09.12,2004, passed fn Claim Case No.04/2004. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.28,55,000/-, claimed by the appeliant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.05.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sumof Rs.2,35,000/'- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition till the date of 4) Shri Ashish. Surana, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- only. 5) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 the New india Insurance Company Limlted on the other hand supported the award and contended that the Tribunal 'nas awarded excessive compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- to the cjaimant. 6) Before the Tribunat, the claimant examined himself alone as AW/1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by hlm in the motor accident and the fact t'nat those injuries resulted in any permanent disabiflty. 3 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 consideratlon )re the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Tt reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent - clsimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we flnd 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 treatins the injury as permanent disablSity to be 45 percent. The Hiqh Court committed gross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medicai certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribuna! has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancinq 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 Tribunai, if it has not already been withdrawn." 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajei 4 w (2008) 7 SCC 305, relterated the same yiew with the followini ions in para 11 : "11. The certificaie in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civii 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 himseif, It was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability it 60% was caiculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is &tso 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 proceeded on the materials brou; the parties. In absence of any contention havins been raised in regard to the appiicability 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 disabifity certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who has issued those certificates in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra),, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 11) The appeal, filed by the appellanVciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice padma Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^3,