HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D8VISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHR6 RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Applicant AppeSiant Noo-aDDSIcants Respondents M.A.iC) No. 1370 of 2007 Tukaram, son of Ramchandra, aged about 46 years, residence of near Panchsheel School, Sector-11, Zone-1, M.P.R. Road, near Tlwari Kirana Store, Khursjpar, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS 1. Dinesh Sharma, son of Shankar La! Sharma, aged about 31 years, residence of Kargi Road, Ram Mandir Chowk, Patanpara, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattlsgarh (Driver). 2. Shahid Ahmad, son of Shabbir Ahmad (Musalman) residence of M.I.G.1/81 Hud'Ko Bhiiai, Tahsli and District Durg, Chhattlsgarh (owner of vehicie). 3. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Aakash Ganga, Supeia Bhilai, Tahsii and District Durg, Chhattisgarh (insurance Company). AppeaS U/S. 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Om. P. Sahu, counsel for the appeltant. gRDER sth (2Sm Febmary, 2010) The following order of the Court was passe^ by \ Rajeev Gupta, C.J.' ^ IINNW, [{- Shri Om P. Sahu, learned counsei for the appetiant is heard on admission. 2) Appeilant - Tukaram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by 7 Addjtiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal5) vide award dated 25.08.2007, passed in Claim Case No.42 of2005/ 3). As against the compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- claimed by the appeltant/claimant by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.07.2004, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.4,834/- as compensation along with interest' @ 6% per annum. 4). Shri Om -P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appeilant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a meager amount of Rs.4,834/-• on!y as compensation to the ciaimants though the appeiiant/daimant sustained multiple serious Injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent djsability. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself alone as AW-1 in support of his ciaim. For the reasons best known to the appelSant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustalned by the appeliant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disabiftty. ^^^- 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the daimant before the TribunaE without examining the Doctor 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 A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 18&, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned 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 reiy 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 by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Trjbunal has determined tne_physjcal dlsabllitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fajr compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, we atlow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-ctaimant is ailowed to vvithdravv the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 7) 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, relterated the same view with the following observations in para 11: .^^.^^.L^.. 4 f ' . @ "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. !t is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after theaccident 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 calcuiated on the basis of the provlsions 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 Tril^unal as aiso 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 appiicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same.in our opinion, cannot be permifted to be raised for the first time." 8) 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 medica! 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 awarded by the Tribunal. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribuna!. 10) The appeal filed by the appeltant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, 'is Eiable to be dismissed and Es hereby dismissed summarily. • " -— subbu Sd/- aiiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^wi^^