HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH » CORAiVI: HON'BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc. Appeai (C) No. 338 of 2011 ApDellant Ciaimant (• Respondents (Non-applicants) 1. Namendra Sahu, s/o. Late Neeicharan Sahu, aged 40 years, r/o. Aakash Nagar Ward No.11, Police Station —• Urla, Beergaon, Distt. Raipur (CG). '" - 1. Tapan Kumar Das s/o. Late Dhananjay Das agec^45 years, r/o. Block No.4, Mana Camp, P.S: Camp Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG)^ (Driver of vehicle Mahindra pk^'up No. C.G.04JB2715). 2. Neelesh Kumar Lal S/o. J.L. Lal R/o. Rajendra Nagar, New Janta Colony Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). (Owner of vehicle Mahindra Ptekup No. CG -04- JB2715). 3 Manager, Bajaj Alliance, Address — Shivmohan Vidhan - Sabha Road, Panderi, Raipur, Distt.Raipur (CG). . IVIIsceESaneous Appeal under Sectlon 173 of i^otor Vehicies Act Present : Shri Sudhir Verma, counsel for the appeilant ORDER (17th March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. /- i By ailowing 1A No. 17201 1, the documents filed along with thls appljcation are taken on record. ^ 2) Shri Sudhir Verma, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 3) Appellant Namendra Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensationawarded by the 9 Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 04.12.2010, passed in Claim Case No.55/2Q10. 4) As against the compensation of Rs.8,70,000/-, ciaimed by the appellant/ciaimant by fiiing a claim pet[tion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor acddent on 16.10.2009, theTribunalawarded a totai sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensatlon to the ciaijnant aiong with interest @ 7.6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tiil the date ofactual payment. 5) Shri Sudhir Verma, learned counsei for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.30,000/- only though the appellant/ daimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident, resulting in permanent disability. 6) From para 11 of the impugned ,award we gather that for the reasons best known to the appellant / claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tirbunal to estabiish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeflant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent ^ disability. , ^ H) The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without ^examining the Doctor who ;® ...^ issued the certificate can be relied upon as substahtive evidence for the assessment of thecompensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189^,wherein it was observed in para6asunder: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent - daimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justificatjon forthe High Court to rely ^ on the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddyand enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court cotfimitted arosserror in overlook'ina the fact thaf Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv fhe Tribunal for nQn-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined th6 phvsical dlsabiiitv at 15 Der cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and ? enhancingthecompensation. Consequently,we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Cfaims Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is altowed to withdraw the 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 Vs Yudhvir SIngh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following ^ - observations in para 11 : c ^- "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated theappellant. Onwhat 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 thecertificate examined himself. it was not admissibte 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 ^ 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. !n absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicabiiity of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our ^ . opinion, exfec/e hasno application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 9) The medical certificates 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 alias Raju Vs Yudhvar Singh and another (supra), cannotbe taken Into consideration for enhanQ'ement of the compensation in the case. ' 'M.^ ^s^^ padma l^c: 10) ,We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal, filed by the appeljant/cjaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is tiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge -^ •As?;-» .^ /