HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'Bt.ESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA.CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 788 of 2005. Appellant ClaimanS 01 ReSDondents Non-appticants, Yogesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 14 years, Syo Late Thakur Ram Sahu, through legal guardian mother NirmalaSahu, GcGUpattonServiceof General Stores, Resident of Mahohia Bazar, Raipur, Tatt. & Distt. (C.G.5. VERSUS 1. Nagendra Panday, S/o Chandrams Panday, R/o Qtr. No.A-3, IVIaroda Tank, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G. 2. Police Mahanidesak, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Distt. Raipur<C.G.). 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Colleetor, Raipur (C.G,). Raipur MEMORANDUIVI OF APPEAt. UNDER SECT1QN 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES Wt. Present: Shri A.L. Singraut, counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No,1 though served. Shri J.A. Lohani, PanelLawyer, forrespondents No.2 ? and 3/State. ORDER >nd (22mFebruary,2011) The; followina order of the Court was passed by 1%ajeevGupta,G,J. jj' ••} II i- l?i Appellant - Yogesh Kumar Sahu is seeking enhancement of the eompensation awarded by the 12* Additional IVIotor Accident Claims Tribunal, RaipuL(forshort 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 15:04.2005, passed in Claim CaseNo.62/2004. ~ 2) As against the compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- claimed by claimant boy Yogesh Kumar Sahu through her mother Nirmala Sahy, by filing a Glaim petition underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles t, fer ttie injuries sustained by him in the motor accident pn 30.05.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum OfrRs.30,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% oer annurrr from the date of filing of the claim pfetition till the date of aetual paymen^., 3) Shn A.L. Singraul, leamed couriset fet- the | appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunat has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.30,000/- only though the appellaiit/ciaimant sustained muitiple serious injuries including fractures injthe motor accident. l 4) ShnJ.A. Lohani, learned Panel LawyerforrespondentsNo.2 and 3, on the other hanci, supported the award and CQntended that the compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensattcin in the facts and circymstanees of the present^aSe.^', . /;; '. •' ^ '•;: ^ ' 'S) Before the TribunaL the claimant examinal AW-1 Nirmala Sahu and| AW-2 Kamlesh Sahu in support of hisjelaim- For the reasons btest knowntothedaimantandhiismothst;nocipet6rwas examined 1 before the Tribunal to^egtablish the natuife of tBe injuries .<^;lrl7 f'S.. t-:-.-s& A '.atf*" ^i? ..;rfy said to have been sustained by theclaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the TribynaT without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be retied upon assubstantiye evidence forthe assessment of the compensation came ypforconsideration 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 para6asunder: I "6. After hearing learned counsel for the responclent- elaimant who made an attempt to support the order qf the High CQurt, we find that there was no justification foi- the ' High Caurt to rely on the disability certificate fesued by Dr, Sudhakar Reddv and enhance the compensation by treatingtheinjuryaspermanentdisabilitytobe45perpent. The Hicih Court committed aross error in overlookind the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Recldy's medical eertifieate was rejected bv the Tribunal for noh-examination ofthat doetor. The TribynaljTas_determined the^ ph'teical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basisoffhe deDositiohofDr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and faircombensation. The Mlah Court erred in disturbina 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 lamount-.pf compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not alreadybeen withdrawn." ; 7) The Apex Couri: in a recentdictum in the case ofiRajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in i N ;1 III II: ill '\\ !1 1 1 1 li !; III iliPl'ifri 3a%,. ''^SK ..::'^%tg ^ .t 'B S •.•{Tff"" W[ \ w ;Ul, (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated thesame view with the following obser/ations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question inthis case was obtained aftertwo years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, sueh a certificate was issued two years after the accident took plape is not known. The author of the said eertificate had not 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 Aet or otherwise js not Known. It is atso not knownlas to whether he was competent to issue such a eertificate. It even does not appearthatthe contentions raised beftre us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. Ttte Tribunal as also the High CQUrt, therefore, proceeded on the materials broyght on record By the parties; In absenceofany contention haying been raisedin regard to theapplicability oftheWorkmen's CQmperisation Act which, in our opinion, exfacie has no apDlication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the firsttime." 8) The medical certificates produced by theclaimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctQr who had issued those certificates, in view of the above quoted cffcte of the Apex Court in thecases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Rajy v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken ihto con'sideration forenhancement of the inthecase. compensation ?SB^. .„•, : ;< .^ i. ;:11 subbu 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancementofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensatioh, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismjssed. 11) No orderasto costs. Sd/- Chief Jusdce 1. Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge 'J .:"».'