HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVfSIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNSL KUMAR SSNHA, J. Appellant CSaimant Misc. Appeal No. SS3 of 2003 Bheji Lal Sahu, aged about 65 years, son of Shri Latelram Sahu, resident of viliage Palaud; Tah. Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versys Respondents 1. Ramesh Kumar, son of Shri Anand Rao, resident of Suk!i, P.S. Dheergaon, distt. Akola (Mlaharashtra) present address M.P. Road Lines, Mohba Bazar, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (DRIVER) 2. Peraj Ayee Gonata, resident of Bhumrah Garage Compound, resident ofvillage Rehanlal Aagra Road Bhiwadi, distt. Thanne (Maharashtra) present address M.P. Road Lines Mahoba Bazar, Raipur fOWNER) 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. through Regionai Offjce, JaiS Road, Madina Building, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (INSURER) Memorandum of appeal under Section 173 of the iVlotor VehidesAct.1S38 Present: Shri R. Pradhan and Shri Harsh Mahant; iearned counsei for the appeliant. None for respondents No. 1 8s 2. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, ieamed Senior Counset with Shri Amit Sharma, iearned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER xth (9mSeptember,2010) ^^%—-^ ^" ,,^w^, '^ fi' '^ ^ i^ssss^'] 'i? j L/ 1. The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant - Bheji Lal Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10-04-2003, passed in Claim Case No.07/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03-08-2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri R. Pradhan and Shri Harsh Mahant, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,000/- only, though the appeilant/ ciaimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined two witnesses jncluding himself <AW1 Bheji Lal Sahu and AW2 Jagat Ram Sahu) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/daimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. ,,^.^ '^ss^, :s y/ *'"' .^:y ^.. V,.. 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 v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein jt 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 disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examjnation of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis ofthe deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in djsturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the CJaims 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 v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008)7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11: "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 certificate 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 ofthe 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 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 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 A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra)and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, 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 bythe Tribunal. ^^s^.^ '^" .:A\ r"'\ .;T'7 ,. " , 9) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed. 1 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu ^;..