^ ^^ z fv" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVSSION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRi RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (C) (PR) No. 707 of 2011. x^c-'n<nu- AppeSlant Ashish Agrawa!, S/o Naresh Agrawaf, aged about 26 years, R/o Vjilage Devkar Baniyapara, Post Devkar, Police Station Devkar, Tahsii Saja, District Durg (CG) Non-aDDJicants i?- s 5 VERSUS Dinesh Kumar, S/o Gendlal Sharma, Aged about 35 years, Occupation Dumper Driver, R/o Village Badhaiya, Poiice Station Hanumana, District Reewa (MP) Presentiy residing at Heerapur, Police Station Aamanaka, Raipur (CG) RK Singhaniya, S/o Laxminarayah, Singhaniya, R/o Near Bharat Mata School, GE Road, Tatibandh, Raipur (CG) Manager, ICiCi, Lombard Generai Snsurance 'Company Limited, Unit No.304, 306 Third Floor, Lalganga Shopping Mall, GE Road, Ravishankar Muniwar, Raipur (CG) Gajadhar, S/o Dashrath Nishad, aged about 24 years, Occupation Driver, R/o Village Devri, Tahsil and Police Station, Dhamdha, District Durg (CG) Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Ljmited, Divisional Office Thakkar Chambers, GE Road, Power House Bhiiai (CG) MjsceSSaneous ApDeaI under Section 173 of MotorVehiclesAct ^) R! (^' Present : Shri SP Sahu, counsel forthe appellant ORDER (27th June, 2011) Shri SP Sahu, iearned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant/ ciaimant Ashish Agrawal is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.10.2010, passed in Claim Case No.31/2010. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.18,60,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.09.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.41,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actua! payment. 4) Shri SP Sahu. iearned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding lov^ compensation of Rs.41,000/- oniy, though the claimant sustained multjple serious injuries including fractures in the motor. 5) From para 11 of the impugnsd award we gather that the claimant for the reasons best known to him, did not examine any doctor before the Tribuna! for establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor ^''"^•^•; .,^s:^ - ^. '^,;^y '^-w^'^ accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medicat certificate produced by the ciairnant before t'ne Tribunai v^ithout examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be reiied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideratlon before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupa! Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned counsel for the respondent - ciaimant who made an attempt to suppoi-t the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justiflcation forthe High Court to rely on the disability certlficate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy an.d enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. T'ne High Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina 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." .,^^^ ^) ^ (-..... k.; 7) 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 inpara11 : "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 hospitai treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whetherthe disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is a!so 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 the Tribunal 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 opinion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) The medical certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctor who had issued those certificates in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in .^-y^ .^.i-"^ T subbu the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra) cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai, the appeal filed by the appeilant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge / 7 \.-4