/- OF CHHATTiSGARH AT ^.' .c AoB.e|_lan.t Clalmant Respondents CJ. SUNSL KUMAR SSNHA, J. Appea! No.390 of Dev Singh, S/o late Manakulai Kavan, 28 yrs, R/o VIII Semara, Teh and Dist Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) • 1. Laxmikant, S/o Ram Bharosa, 45 yers, R/o Vishwas nagar, Puraina, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2, Dllip Singh Hora, S/o Amrit Singh Hora, R/o Pachpedi naka, Raipur 3. The New india insurance Co. Ltd., Kutehahary Chowk, Raipur (CG) Mssc. ApDealynder Section 173 of i^otor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Praful! Bharat and Shri Vikas Shrivastava, counsel for the appeiiant. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, Senior Counse! with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, counsei for respondent No.3. ^th (29mNoyember,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Appeiiar'it - Dev Singh is Seeking enhancement of the compensation i swarded by the Additiona! Motor Accident Ciaims ^- c Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award dated 28.10.2002, passed In Claim Case No.80/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/'- ciaimed by the appeilant/daimant by filjng a cialm petitlon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.07.2000, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.5,895/- as compensation to the dalmant aiong with interest 8.5% per annum from the date of fiiing'of the claim petition til! the date of actuai payment. 3) Shri Prafuli Bharat and Shri Vikas Shrivastava; learned counse! for the appeliant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.5,895/- on!y whereas the appellant/ claimant sustained multipie serious injuries in the motor accident. 4) From paras 6 to 8 of the impugned award, we gather that neither any disability certificate was produced before. the Tribuna! nor any doctor was examlned by the claimant to estabiish the injuries said to have been sustained by the ciaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resujted in any permanent dlsabiiity. 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant 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. Thirupai c Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counse) for the respondent-ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justificatson for the High Court to reiy on the disability certificate issued by Dr. SudhaRar.Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed gross error in overtookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicai certificate was rejected by the Tribunaj for npn-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the Dhvsical disabilitv at 15 peLcent_on the basis ofthe deDOsition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded_a just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in djstyrblngjhe. same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, we ai!ow this appeai, set aside the impugnsd order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is ailowed to wlthdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai; if it has not already been withdrawn." S) The Apex Court in a recent dictum In the case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Rajv'^, Yudhvir Slngh and another; reported in 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observationsin para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtalned after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civil; Surgeon of the hospita! treated the appeiiant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said c.ertlficate had not been examined. Unless ^"\ ^^y' ^s^^^' ^. •^—•.< L, the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admisslbie in evidence. VVhether the disabiSity at 60% was cafculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Actor otherwise is not known. It is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentlons raised before us had either been raised before t'ne Tribuna! or the High Court. The Tribuna! 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 appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permltted to be raised for the first time." 7) The medical certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal in view of the above quoted dlcta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupa! Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar aiias:Raju v. Yudhvir Slngh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideratlon for enhancement of the compensation inthecase. 8) We, therefore^do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensatlon awarded bythe Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant/ciaimant fpr enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed andis herebydismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge