HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRi SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant Non-Applicant M.A.(C)No. 972 of 2009 Smt. Ramwati, W/o Doba, Caste Muriya, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Chotekarka, P.S. Geedam, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) Respondents Non-applicants. VERSUS Sunil Gupta S/o Chhotelal Gupta, aged about 28 years, R/o / Dewangan Para, P.S. Geedam, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) (Owner & driver of vehicle Mahindra Commander Jeep No. C.G. 18/ZD- 0178) The New india Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (tnsurance Company of vehicle Mahindra Commander Jeep No. C.G. 18/ZD-0178) Umesh Karma, S/o Sukoo karma, aged about 23 years, R/o Harampara, P.S. Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) (Driver of the Vehicte Mahindra Max UP-93J-9184) Virendra Bhan Shrivastava, S/o Unkown, R/o Devendra Nagar Road, Saj Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of the Vehicle Mahindra Max U P-93 J-9184) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (insurance Company of the Vehicie Mahindra Max UP-93 J- 9184). Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri P.M. Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellant. //^ i | ^' J/: :i:-y^ ORDER (21st JuEy, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. By allowing I.A.No.01/2009, the appellant is granted exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned award. 2) Shri P.M. Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admlssion. 3) Appeliant/ciaimant Smt. Ramwati is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dantewada (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.02.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 105/2008. 4) As against the compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- claimed by the appellant/ ciaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for the Injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 21.05.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,400/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri P.M. Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding meager amount of Rs.3,400/- oniy though the appellant/ claimant sustained muitiple serious injuries with corresponding fractures in the motor accident and those injuries resulted in permanent disability. 6) For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estabiish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabllity. 7) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the ctaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certiflcate 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. Thjrupa! Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsei 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 Hicih Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicai certjficate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai hasaetermined the phvsica! disabilitv at 15 per cent on the oasis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we aliow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- ciaimant is aliowed 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 v. Yudhvir Singh and another, repprted in />w!% '? A '" ^ ^N»^. 1. •^ ^. 1- t s' ~%^.^^'^" 4 (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foliowing 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 admissibte in evidence. Whether the disabitity 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 applicabiiity 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) 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), the medical certificates produced by the appellanVclaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu