'1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR DEVISION BENCH Coram : HGN’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeai No. 166 of 2004 APPELLANT Bhagirathi Verma Sfo Sri 3L EMANT Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma, Aged about — 28 years, Occupation‘ : Cooli, R/o ViHage — Math Purena, Raipur, Thana — Tikrapara, Tahsi! & Distt -— Raipur (C.G.). \\; Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Kama! Sahu S/o Sri Hardev Sahu NONHAPPLICANTS Aged about '— 37 years, Occupation Auto Driver, Rio City Station, Pandri, Thana, Civil Line, Raipur Distt — Raipur (C.G.). 2. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sri Jumman Das, R/o in front of - Dr. Bajaj, Lakhe Naga'r, Raipur. 3. The New india insurance Company Limited, City Branch No.1, Bajrang Market, GE. Road, Raipur Through : Divis‘ionai Manager, Divisionai Ofiice, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.. NHSC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988. Present : Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for the appeiiant. ORDER (151“ July, 2009) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: ) Appellant Bhagirathi Verma is seeking enhancement of the compensatien awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal‘) vide award dated 1G.10.2003, passed in Claim Case No.14/2002. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.5,80,000/— claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained byv him in the motor accident on 05.03.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,000/— as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of-the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3).000/- only though the appellant! claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 4. For the reasons best known to the appellant! 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 injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 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 before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupat s Raddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, 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 disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hiqh Court committed ’dross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was reiected by the Tribunal for non—examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disabiitty 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 disturbind the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we aliow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- ‘ claimant is aliowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, 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 : I “ 11. 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 two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certincate had not been examined. Unless the author of the cepifioate examined himself it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was caiculated 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 certificate. it even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before theTribunai or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials 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 opiniorr, ex facie has no appiicaiion, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for {he first time.” 7. in View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of AP; SRTC vs. P. Thirupai Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju vs. Yucihvir Singh and another (Supra), the medicai certificates produced by the appeiiantl ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued those certificates, Cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 8. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The appeal, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. v1~ecii Still- ’ ' 5di- i Chief Justice t _ Sunii. Kumar 5inha i Judge 13y \ \ i t eu ,u ‘