/fc HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1160 of2010 Appellant Claimant Homeshwar Sinha, S/o Ganeshram Sinha, aged about 35 years, R/o Gram Semra, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants Rajesh Manikpuri, S/o Gannudas Manikpuri, R/o Gram Sambhalpur, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (CG) Kamlesh Dilliwar, S/o Jiwan Lal Dilliw/ar, R/o Gram Sanod, PS Gurur, District Durg (CG) The Nationa! Insurance Company Umjted, through Branch Manager, Indian Coffee House, GE Road, Raipur Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal u/S 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. 1988 Present: Smt Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (03rd January, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. ^-c\ 1 %^'v" /? ^ Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant - Homeshwar Sinha is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.10.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 163/2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/daimant by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.04.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant spent substantial amount on treatment. 5) From para 11 of the award we gather that the claimant for the reasons best known to him did not examine any doctor before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained in the motor accident. 6) The question whether the medical certiflcate 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 J^ ^^.t. ^Vss^ 1 ^~~;ly;:'t, 1 '^ "s^^"^ /^ 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 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 High Court committed aross error in overlookina 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 disabititv at 15 per cent on the basis of the depositjon of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw 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, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in thjs case was obtained after two years. It Ss not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was , , frt-;',;-'-.!-"1'.^ ^v&"i"-^\ . ;^-... • l ^. ^^./ • 1<? issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certiflcate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certjficate examined himself, it was not admjssible 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 issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the Hjgh Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the partles. 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." 8) The medical certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctor who had issued the said certificates, 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), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. - :^'. ^^-^•"I .^' nimmi ^Q 10) The appeal filed by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. _ _ — Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge )