.a..1 HEGH €OURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT ELASPUR DEVESEON BENCH Goran! : HONgSLE SHR! RJKJEEV GUPTA. C.J. 8: HGM’ELE $HRE SUML KEMAR S§NHR J. Misc. Appeai No. 256 of 20M APPELLQNT Smt. Gayatri bai W/o Ram APPLiQkNT Prakash aged abam 45 years, R/o Qt No. 7 A; Maroda Railway Comny, P.O. Nawayee, DistE. Drug (C.G.) STATuS : AppRcant in claim Case No. 123i2000 decided by the Caur‘i of V Addi. Momr Acddem Ciaim Tribunai Durg (C.G.) Verws RESPQNBEN‘?$ 1. Ram Singh S/o MandragE, aged é‘éQN-APPumxNT about 36 yeafs, Rio Téturdeeh, N39, 1’ near Mahesh Cycie Store, Burg {c.G.) $TATUS : Non— Appiicant No. 1 in daim Case No. 123/2000 decided by V Add§. Motor Accident Ciaim TrEbunat Durg {c.G.) NON-APPUCANT 2. Branch Manager, MP. Adivasi N0, 2 Vida V§kas Nigam, Burg (C.G.) Through : Santosh Kumar Thakur Deeeak Nagar, Burg (C.G.). STATES : Non- Applicani No. 2 in daém Case N0. 123/2000 decided bv Vth Addi. Motor Accident Ckeim Tribune! Durg’(C.G.) NGN-AFPHCANT Divisional Manager, Orientai m. 3 msurance Co. Ltd Mawiya Nagar, Durg (0.6.). STATUS : Non- Appiicant Noe 3 in cla§m Case No. Q3/2000 decided by Vth Addl. Motor Accident Ciaim ‘ Tribunai Durg (C.G.) ‘A??EAL UNDER SECTKDN 1?3 GF THE MOTQR VEHECLES ACT Present : Shri Uttam Pana‘e‘ , iearned counsei fer ihe appailant. GREER £34“ $ggy, mg; The foiiowing crdev of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gama, CJ; . Shri Utiam Pandey, ieamed counse§ for ihe appeiiani §s heard on admission. 2A Appenant Smt. Gayatri Bai is seeking enhancement sf the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additionai Motor Accident Cjaims TribunaL Durg (for snort ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 26.11 .2003, passed in Claim Case No.123/ZDOO. ' 3. As against the compensation of Rs.7,35,536/~ ciaimed by the appeiiantl daimant by filang a ciaim petition undei Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Ac? for the iniuries said to have been sustained by her in the motor accident on 08.10.2000; the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.20,QDO!- as compensaiion to ihe oiaimant aiong with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of fiiing cf the cieim petition tiii the date of actuai payment ”,V 4. Shri Uttam Pandey, iearned counsei for the apoeiiant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in avgarding iow compensation of Rsi20,QOOI- oniy though the appeiiant/ ciaiment sustained muitipie serious injuries inoiuding fractures in the motor accident; the injuries and fractures resutted in permanent disabiiity ta {he gxtent af 20%; the claimant su€fered monetary £033 as she couid nm atiend to his dutkes far a period gf six menths. 5. Eefore ‘che Tribunah though the ciaimant examined herseif a$ AW-1 gnd AW-Z Banshiia! in support of her oiaim, for the reasons besi known to the aopeiiant! c§aimant, no doctm was exammed to estabiish ihe nature of the in;unes said to have been sue’iaineoé by the apheiieni! ciaimant in the motor ecoidené and the fact that those miuries resuited in any permanent disability. 6. The quesiion whether the medical certificate produced by the C§aimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be reiied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of AP. SRTC vs. P‘. Thirupat Reddy, reported tn €2QQ5} t2 SCC 1&9, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing learned counsel for the reseondent-claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justttioaticn 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 disabtittyto be 45 per cent. o s m ‘ e or non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the ghysicat dtsabiltty at 15 ger cent on the basis of the deoosition of Dr. KM. Mitre and awarded a iust and fair oomoensatton. The Ftigh Court erred in disturbino the same and enhancino the comgensation. Consequently, we allow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award otthe Ctaims Tribunat. The reseondent— oiaimant is ailowed to ‘withdraw the amount oi The High Court committed gross error in veriooktnd the tact that Dr. Sudhakar Redd ’ edtcat cert‘rttoate was reected the Tribunat f @ compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not Al aii’cduy .«nAu uEci‘I L. A wm Hgd iui’a‘v‘vi u~ s. ” 7. The Apex Court in a recent dicmm in the case of Rajesh Kum‘ar aiias Reju vs. Yuéhvir Singh and mother; reported in égwg) ? SCC 395‘ reiterated the same View with the foliowing obeervatiens in para 11 : “ 11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it ts not known as to Whether the CM! Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeltant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident toek piece is not known. The author of the said certificate had , not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissibie in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was caicuiated on the basis of the provisions oi 5 .tne k Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certit‘icate. it even does not apeear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunat or the Hioh Court. The Tribunai as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais 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.” 8. in View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the oases of AP. $RTC vs. P. Thiruoal Reddy (Supra) and Raiesh homer aiias Raiu vs. Yucihvir Singh and another (Supra), the medicai certificate and the disabiiity certificate produced by the appellant! ciaimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement oithe compensation in the case. \‘b Q. We, therefore, do not fmd any scope far enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 10. The appea§ fiied by the appeiiant/ ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation therefore; is liabie to be dismissed and is t t / [y t ' y hereby dismissed summarity. r‘ M ‘ Sdl- Sd/' ‘ I Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Justice f Judge