HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR , DIVI$ION BENCH CQRAM: HONEBLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. NLA. No. 982 of 26%. Durga Prasad Sahu, S/o Late Lakhan La! Sahu, Aged 2O years. R/o Behind Rajim Rice Min, Kodi Para, Nayapara, Teh. Rajim DisttRaipur (C.G.). Appeiiant Appiicant. VERSUS Resnondents 1. Sheikh Aabid, S/o Abdu! Hasaan, Age Non-applicants 32 yrs. Truck Driver. R/o Behind Rajim Rice Miii, Kodi Para, Nayaparam Teh. Rajim, DisttRaipur (C.G.). 2. Karam Chand Sundrani, 8/0 AM. Sundrani, Truck Owner, R/o Ram Rice iViiil, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Near Nayapara, Teh.Rajim, DisiiRaipur (C.G.). 3. The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office No.2 Chawia Compiex Devendra Nagar, Raipur. By Divisionai Manager, Divisionai Office, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (0.6.). Appeal UfS. 1?3 of the Meier Vehicies Act. Present : Shri Raja Sharma, counsei for the appeiiant. Shri G.S. Patel, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (25m February, 2019) The fonowing order of the Coun was passed by Rajeev Gupm, C.J. Appellant —Durga Prasad Sahu is seeking enhancement of the‘compensation awarded by 13‘” Additicna! Motor Accident Ciaims TribunaL Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.06.2005, passed in Claim Case No.67 of 2004. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.iQ,O0,000!- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.1 1 .2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3). Shri Raia Sharma. learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.30,000/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Before the Tribunal. the claimant examined himself alone as AW4 in support of his claim. 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 ihe claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Dcctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantlVe evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of AP. SRTC v. P. Thirunai Raddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing teamed counsel for he respondent— claimant who made an attempt to suppovt the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certiiicate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 4’5 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medicai certificate was reiected by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phveical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. ii/iitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hidh Court erred in disturbind the same and enhancinq the compensation. Consequently, we ailow this appeal. 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 Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.” 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh- Kuma‘r aiias Raiu v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2608) T SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the following observations in para i ’l : t “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 appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examinedrhimself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated 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 tssue 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, proceededon the materiais brought on record by the parties. inabsence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability 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.” 7-) in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate produced by the appellantjclaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancementof the‘compensation awarded by the Tribunal b) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awardedby‘the Tribunal. x . ca 9) ' The appeal filed by the appellant/daimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and ls hereby dismissed. ... .. l l l 19) No order as to costs. ,7 (We .. \ ’Sd/y' r Sd/‘ ,l -.-R.N. Chandrakar ¥ Vallef JUsu‘Ce . , L - " > ledge . ‘ “ 5'4“ subbu ¥7 Judge 1 5'4“ ..Vi:¥f% l ‘ _ r