HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHWTBILASRUR DIVISIONBENCH eORAM: HON'BLESHRIRA^EEVGUPTA,GJ.& HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR;,]. Misc.ApbealfCl N0.1084 of2010 t ~\ Aiwellant Claimant sm Karan Satnami, s/o Ramkishyn Satnami, Aged .about 36 years, Kashtkar and AgFicultyrist, ; R/o Tonatar, PS Bhatapara, "Wtlags, Tat-lsil — Bhatapara, Distt^ Raipur (CG).:.,:.,'.:,;.: '•,- ResDondents (Npn-Glaimants^ VERSUS Mastram, S/o Babulaia Banjare, Aged about 21 years.Qccupation— Driver, R/o Qld Bastj Salodabazar, PS & Tahsil - Balodabazar, Distt :.Raipyr^CG):..' ,.,•;';:,:,,;,.:, ^ (Drh/er of vehicle Maruti car Qmni NO.GG-Q4-HA-6592) Bharatlal S/o F'remnarayan ^Soni, Aged about 2Z years,' R?o Baloda Bazar, Givil Line, Infront of High Schoul PS & Tahsil Baioda Bazar, ©isttRaipyr(G©)(OwneFjsfveUicle' l\4aruti ca- Ornhi No.CG-04-HA- •6592)..:^..,,...:,^,1,.'.,^. f' . •:i.:^'"': •" ;:' Insyrance Mariaget', The New India iRsyranc® Cornpahy Ud., Maryti Insurance, NewDelhi(lnsyrer) ; : ADpeaiunderSection1?lotth^lVI<»tor ehiGlesSct.»1988 Present: ShriAnilSingh Rajpyt,counsel fortheappellant; ORDER itH <29m0ctober;2010) "^3^ The following orcier of the Court was passed by Ra|eev Gupta, C.J. . Appellanf-KaranSatnamiisseekingenhancementofthe compensatiorr awarded by the Additional Motdr Aceiderrf Giaitns Tribunal, Bhatapara, District Raipur (for short the Tribunal') vide awarddated 30.07.2010, passedinClatmCaseNo.28/2009. 2) As againstthe compensation of Rs.21,90,609/- claimed by theappeltar^iaimant^yfilingaclaimpetitionurtderSectton 166 Of the Motor VehiGles Acf Tbr the inJLlries sustaihed by tTim in the motor aGCjdent on23.0^5009,the Tritlunal awarded a totalsum ^of Rs.70,000/- as e(}mpens9tion atong With interest @ 6% per annumfromthedateoffilirigoftheclaimpetitiontinthedateof actual:payment.,: ;:, . .:: , '.. . • , : •:. •.•• • :, ;''/, ' . . 3) Shri Anil Singh Rajput, learned counset for the appellant vehemently argued that ttie Tribuoal ttas erred in awarding low compensationof Rs.7Q,OQO/- bnly thbygh ttie^ppellant/ claimant systained muttipleserious^njunes^nclydin^fractyresinthemotOr .?'. •• • . " accicientresutting'inpern"ianentdisabilitytotheextehtof80%. 4), Beifbre the Tribunal the claimant examined two witnesses ^ including-himselT(AW1^MastramandAW2MaanSinghDhrev^^ support of his ctaim; For the reasoris best known to the appellanVcIaimarrt; no doctor wasiexamined befoi'e the.Tribuna! to estabtishthe natureOftMe injLiri|!S said^ohavebeen susfained bythe appellant/ daimarrt in the TnQtDraecidentanclthe"facl those^njuriesjregulteclinany?Rermanentdisability. ff f ' ~ • %. B ^ay-ff s..,.^' K'K'W: : s, 5) The question whetherthe medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the Gertifieate cari be relied upon as substahtive K ' •• ; • .. • •. .' ••'..••.•'..•....• - evidence fbr the assessment of the compensatipn came up fer consideration befbre theApex Court in fhe case 6f A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupat Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it wasobserved in paraSasunder: "6. After hearing learhed GQurisel for the respondent- claimantwhQmadeaffattempttosupporttheorderofthe l-1igh^CQurt,wefindthattherewas nojustification fbrthe High Courtto rely qn the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the comperisation fay treatjng the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per eent. The Hiah .Gourt eommitted gross error in . overiooking the faet that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certifieate was reiected bv the Tribunal fbr non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 perGent 6n the basis ofthe deRpsition of Dr. K;M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensatioh. The Hiah Gourt erredi in disturbina the same and enhanciBa the compensation. Conseqyently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugrted order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimantisallowedtowitHarawthieamountoft cornpensation awarded by the Tnbunal, if jt.has n^ already beeh withdrawn." 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictumln thecase of Rajesh KuiTiar^liasRaju v. Yudhvir Singh and another,irep6rt^^m ^-.;::i.:'.^"'.-^:.;.' : -.:.:.. .•"•'.•••J.:";;:-:...:;;'. ^... ':..:'.".".'• ^. (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated Ihe sgme view with t^ observations jni.aara,11 : ; , . . ..-.^'tefW;- .^l^..-^-.,. ^U-SL^ ij ri^..,«!!s»!R^ i,, ••^,.."'. ' ."<'il 4 "11. The eertificate in question m this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Suigeon bf the hospital treatedthe appellant. Qn what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accidenttbok place is not known. The author of the said^certificate_had^ not_been examined. ,Unless the author of the certiftcate examined himself. it was not admissible in eyidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated ort the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Aet or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. Iteven does Bot appearthatthe contentions raised before us had either been raised beforeflie Tribuhalor the High Court. The Triburial as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the mateFials brought on record bythe parties. In absence of any contentlon having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinton, ex facie has no application, the same, in oyr opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first •Vme^ '.:. :••.'• :. : ;1.: - ,11 • ::, : •-. 7) In view of theabove quoted afcte of the Apex Court in the f-. • . • ••: . • • cases of A.P SRTC v. P. Thirupal Redd^ (Supra^ and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra),the medicai Gertifieate and the disability certilTeate produeed hy the claimant before the Tribunal without examining.the doetore who had issued those certificates, cqnnot be taken into Gonsideration forenhancementofthecQmpensationinthe case. 8) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of thecompensation awarded bytheTribunal. A* 9) Theappealfiled bytheappellant/elaimantfor^nhancement Qf the Gompensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice nimmi Sd/- RN. Chandrakar Judge