;illl il'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR! SUNIL KUMAR SiNHA, J. 3{u(nli9J|ltU| Misc. Appeai No. 4§2of 2004 •w i '1!»i!^l'i IRTR ^RT 7!^ m5 ^RT ^? 32 ci^ i^dlfl! ^Rt, TiTToT '^^ '^'rK'i ?HRr wRn iwr? UiTu|^||';-T|ttj| (».<1.) 2 ^iA^ci^ 11717? ?J^T cl^ ^. ^ ^i^ 7m TJ^I 2S W^T, TSiciT w ^nr MII^'iK-^Hl {W.'i.J n ritTKm!""] ;P?R ';H75 3IIHT5F '?ft.'!??T.T!!^, R'il'rfl •ef)W 7^t7 W, ^W^t ra7T.) qi5;t liiclqi ql8:T t)*1|ti) EVlP 28 E^SIO IBH ai^rii TSffFJ ch!!^!(b qc^ ^ror ?RTTR co!i,<|tn, -^ i v -r ii '.I -;• ^ ^5 " .- •• '. .- j TOt 'WC] atRT u!iui'i!< re.iT.) gRT qciHTr - -L TO C'roTSi' q7 I!Ta' ull^'ll'i T3TfflT ^TSFTR-'ilNT q-l5'T ^tM' 3 "^ Sfrf^ITF^fti' ^4l^ ^lT^t ["il^c-d, ^KI ^ii^ TRcT MER;, gi^ qyre ^ Wi^, TH ^, |a<?1['M1>; S.W.'I.) gpStef gjniirj Ej]7T •; 73 I^( (^irhn) VcF Present : Shri J.A. Lohani. learned counset forthe appeliants. ORDER The followina order of the Court was passed Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2) Appellants Narayan Prasad Chandra and Rameshwar Prasad Chandra are seeking enhancement of the compensatlon av.'arded by the Additional Motor Acctdents Clalms Tribunal, Sakti, District Bilaspur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 20.01.2004, passed in Claim Cases No.32/2003 and 33/2003. 3) As against the compensatlon of Rs.23,58,000/- and Rs.14,51,694/-, claimed by appellants / claimants Narayan Prasad Chandra and Rameshwar Prasad Chandra by filing separate ctaim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the iniuries sustained bv them in the motor accident on 15.12.2002, Tribuna! awarded Rs.1,84,563/- and Rs.53,670/- as compensation to the clalmants atong with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of fiiing of She ciaim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 4) Shri J.A. Lohani, tearned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,84,563/- to claimant Narayan Prasad Chandra and Rs.53,670/- to claimant Rameshwar Prasad Chandra though these appellants sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident and also suffered permanent disability on account of those injuries. 5) For the reasons.^best known to the appeltants/claimants, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of Injuries sald to have been sustained by the appeilants/ciaimants in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent dlsabitity. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimants before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can.be relied upon as substantiveevidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal teddy 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 disabiiity certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treatlng the Injury as permanent disabllity to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medica! certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribuna! has determined the phvsical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and falr compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancinq the comDensation. Consequently, we ailow this appeai, 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." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in § [ii.i'i8>e^:il !]illEB;» (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certiflcate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appellant. Qn what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himseif. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiity 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 competsnt to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunai 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 havlng been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act whlch, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) ' Irt 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), the medical certificates produced by the appellants/claimants before the Tribunai without examinina the Doctors who had issued those certificates, .-•a_ .. -. i'lliBSas, ^ cannot be taken into conslderation for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 3) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal fiied by the appeliants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismlssed sumrpariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ;ubbu