^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: AppeUant Respondents HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 609 of 2007 Santosh Kumar Dewangan aged about 27 years, S/o. Umendra Dewangan, R/o. Village - Arang. P.S. Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) At present Resident of Imlibhata Mahasamund, Distrtet Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus 1. Ramsingh, S/o. Sudama Singh r/o. Village Pinerkhurd, P.S. Pakoli,,DJstrict Shwan (Bihar) 2. Amrik Singh, S/o. Late V. Singh, R/o. 85 Jaruipara, Lain Cutoutta (West Bengal) 3. The National Insuranoe Company Limited, through : Branch Office, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Memorandum of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor VehiclesAct. 1988 Present: Shri R. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appeltant. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (24th June, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Appellant< - Santosh Kumar Dewangan is seeking enhancement of.the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, (for short <the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.02.2007, passed in Claim Case No.75/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Sectton 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by hlm in the motbr accident on 29.03.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15.000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the daim petttion till the date of actuat payment. 3) The Tribunal on a ctose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held thatinjured /complainant Santosh Kumar Dewangan sustained injuries in the motor accident on 29.03.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehtete Truck bearing registration No.WB 23-A-5739; as the fact of insurance of this Truck with the National Insurance Company Limited could not be established. the liabil'rty to pay compensation to the claimant was ofthe owner and driver ofthe offending vehicle Truck. 4) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined himself as AW/1 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 si®tained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries re^uted in any permanent disability. 5) The questton 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 it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing leamed counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order ofthe High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issyed 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 pverlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned opder and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensatjon awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 'l 6) The Apex Court in a recent dtetum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in ...^•^ tf^.- yf^ \ '• '^ (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the followlng 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 appetlant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued tyvo years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certiftoate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabilityat 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 issue such a certiricate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Cpurt. 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 fecie has no applteation, the san^e, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the flret time." 7) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupgl Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Sypra), the medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. ^<1\ -^ 8) As the fact of insurance of the offending vehicle Tpuck wtth the National Insurance Company Limited could not be established before the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal exonerating the National Insurance Company Limited from its liabiltty to pay compensation to the daimant. 9) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flled by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismjssed. 10) No order as to coste^ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma