@ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D!V!S!ON BENCH ‘ CORAM: HOWBLE $HRIRAJEEVGUPTA,C.J. HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR;J w. Sunil Kumar Mahilange, aged about 13 years, S/o Shiratri Slo Dukaldas (minor) appeilant through 3 Anpellant Claimant Shivratri < Duka:das 'R/a Wage Bhagtaen PS Mana Kemp, Raipur Tah 8: Distt Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Mansingh Sonwani, aged about years, S/o Deshakram Sonwani R/o ViHage Abhanpurbasti, PS Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG) 2. Pravin Raj Rabart, aged about 4O years, Sz’o Shri Vima! Raj tsai, Rig Dakbangiaw Ward, Ehamtari, District Dhamtari (CG 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Misc Appeal No. 450 of 2002 Slo Resnondents Nan-applicants : Divisional Manager, Jail Road, Kachhari' Chowk, Raipur (CG) Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act Present : Shri SC Verma, counsei forthe appenant. Shri JSP Chandrasen, counsei for respondent No.1. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. The following order Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Sunil Kumar Mahllange is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident ORDER (em Degember, 2009) of the Court was passed by ) H C@ Glaims Tribunal,-Raipur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 24.1 1.2001 passed in Claim Case No.59l2001. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, ciaimed by the appeliantlciaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the iniuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 30.10.99, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of R:s435,000l- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment ‘ 23) Shri SC Verma learned counsel for the appellant vehemently iargued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of §Rs.35,000/- only, though the appellant/ciaimant sustained multipie iserious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in ipermanent disability. 4) Before the Tribunal the appellant / claimant though examined as manv as two witnesses (AW/1 Shivratri, AWI2 Rajesh Kumar), in i support of his claim for the reasons best known to the appellant / claimant no doctor was examined to establish the nature of the i in1uries said to have been sustained bv the appellant/claimant In the motor accident and the fact that those iniuries resulted in any i i 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant 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 i i i i permanent disability. i i /’ W before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal 1 Reddy reported in (2605) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in Dara 6 as under :I “6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent — ciaimant 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 V, . ‘ Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed dross error in overlooking the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing 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 amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.” 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir‘ Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the following observations in para 11 : “1 ’i. 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 wo years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the anthnr nf the certificate eyamined himself it was Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workme‘s Compnsatin Ac o otherwise is not known. It is al no known as to whether he was competent to issue uch a certincate. It eve does not appear hat the contention raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or e High Court. e Tribunal as also he High Court, therefore, proceeded on he materials brought on rord by th e a rgd y ’s mn p p e parties. in absence of any contention having ben rised in ear to the applicabilit of the Workmen Copensatio Act which, in our oinion, ex facie has no aplication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted t e raised for the first time.” 7) in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRT s P. Thirupal Recidy (supra Rajesh Kmar C V ) u alias Raju Vs Ydhvir Singh and another (supra, the medical : u ) i certiticate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tibunal ihout examining the r wt Dtors who had issued the those certincates, cannot be taken into oc consideration for enhancement of the compensaio in the ase. tn c 8) We, therefore, do not ind any scope for enhancement of th ‘ f e gcompensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4 1 t not admissible in evidence. n eo t r so t s n t s th Th t t ec o b , i i i l i §3A i9) The appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement ‘ §of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. i i 10) No order as to costs. ‘ i a Sd/- ‘ CHIEF JUSTICE "