HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal No. 861 of 2004 Appellant Khemlal Sinha, S/o Madan Lal 1 Claimant Sinha, Aged 30 years, Occupation — Driver, R/o Adhari Nava Gaon Ward, Dhamtari, Distt Dhamtari (CG) VERSUS Mohan Lal Gupta, S/o Dau Lal Gupta, R/o Stationpara, Dhamtari (CG) Janab Abdul Shamim, s/o Abdul Bari Khan, R/o Village Chhura, Tah Gariyaband, Distt Raipur (CG) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited —r Dhamtari (CG) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondents Present : Shri Y.C. Sharma and Shri Vivek Rathore, counsel for the appellant. ‘ Shri SudhirAgrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counselfor - respondent No.3. ORDER (20th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was ;passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/claimant Khemlal Sinha is seeking enhancement of the‘ compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims iékl ‘ ‘f‘k’ Tribunal; Dhamtari (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 08.04.2004, passed in Claim Case No.215/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.01.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,42,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Y.C. Sharma and Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,42,000/— only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 80%. 4) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.2,42,000/— as compensation to the claimant. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself alone as AW1 in support of his claim. 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 in the motor accident and the fact that thos'e injuries resuited in any permanent disability. 6) 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 : f‘6. After hearing Iearned counsel for the respondent— claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justificationfor the . High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued byDr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was reiected by the Tribunal ‘for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing 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 Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.” a 7) 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 1 : 1 “11. The ceniiicate 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 hadnot 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. lt even does not appear that the contentions raised before us h’ad 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. ln 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.” 8) The medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the claimant before the ribunal without examining the Doctors T who had issued those certificates, in viewofthe 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 of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not fmd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeai filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby . dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. /; t ' ‘ o,tCh‘e§f‘“sme A . Sd/- - l . 1 g r i r 3 t l l 1“,. ,. i N_ K. Judge Scu— Agarwai i l nimmi rr, i