HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DWESION BENCH Coram HON‘ELE HON’BLE $HRI SHRE RAJEEV SUN“. KU GW&’ AR SINHA, J. Misc. Anneal No. i332 of 2005 APPELLANT 1. Ram Krishna Kesari Aged about CLAIMANT 60 years S/o Bhagwat Prasad Kesari Occupation — Shopkeeper Fu- a; 1d F‘u: dg: iCuitu: . n u nu: ISt, RIU IA u via‘ u' Dushrangpur, Thana Pipariya Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Versus about 4O years S/o Shri Prasad Chaubey' Occupation — Gcvt. Service Rio Mathpara Kawardha, Thana Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Orientai Insurance Company Branch Office Kamthiiine Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (0e) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHECLE ABT, 1988 Present : Shri Suresh Verma, iearned counsei for the appeiiant. None for the respondents. ORDER (14th Jury, 2009) a The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: RESPONDENTS 1. Manoj Kumar Netam Aged about 23 years, S/o Budhari Netam, Occupation -— Driver, Rlo Mathpara ' Kawardha, Dis't. Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Dharamkumar Chaubey Aged @ Appellant Ram Krishna Kesari, is seeking-enhancement cf the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims TribunaL Kabirdham (Kawardha) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated ' 29.07.2005. passed in Ciaim Case No.03/2005. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.8,55,000/— claimed by the appeiiant/ 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 23.07.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.70;000l- as compensation aiong with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. Shri Sures'n Verma, teamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low ‘ Compensation of Rs.70,000{- only though the appellant! claimant sustained multipie serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. . i 4. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it awarded Rs.70,000/— as compensation inciuding Rs.35,000/— towards medical expenses and conveyance. 5. For the reasons best known to the appeiiant/ claimant, no doctor was examined'before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those iniuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6. .The question whether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant 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 vs. P. Thirupai Raddy, reported in (2005) 12 scc 139, 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 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 rejected by the Tribunai for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physicai disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. Mitre and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancinq the compensation. Consequentiy, we allow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent- claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation aWarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 7. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foliowing observations in para 1 1 : “ 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 the appellant. On 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 himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was s‘\ %} caicmated 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 certicate. it even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunai as also the gh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brough on record by the parties. ln absence of any contention haing been raised in regard to the applicability of o ca the first time” 8. ln view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of AP. SRTC vs. . Thirupai Raddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certicates produced by the appellant/ claimant before the if Tribunat without examining the Doctor who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby v the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our pinion, ex facie has no applition, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raise for i nimmi \ \ i if Hi t d P s dismissed. ~ ///. / ee sdl_ Sd/- § stice‘i ‘S‘unil Kumar Sinha Chtef i i Judge ‘-. l