i,J?.'l ^. % w HiGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIVtSIONBENCH COR^ HON^LBSHRIR^EEVGUPTA,CJ.& HGN'BLESMRIRAN<SNATHCHANDRAKAR,J. Nisc.ADDeaKCyNo. 1108 of 2010 ADDellant Respondents Bharat S/o Bhsigwan Da9, aged about 23 years, ipaste - Satnarni, Occupatiqn - Bjetel shop, (Pan Thela), R/o Village lndauri,^Pplice Station Pipariya, jTahsil Kawarclha, DistrietKafc>irdhamiJ(CG) VERSUS ! Vijay Agrawal, jS/o Kanghi Lal Jajswal, aged about 44 yeare, OccupsAion^- D^ RpliceStation&TahsilBodla,District Kabtrdham(CG) j SatyendFaJaiswal,S/o_VijayJaiswal, Occupation-Owher(PiQkupVehicle CG 09-B 0237) ^/o Bodla, Poljce Station & Tahsj! BodJa, District Kabirdhan't(CG) ! Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokyo General Insui'ance Company Limited, Lal Gan^a Shopping Mal, Raipur, DJstrictRaipur(CG) JViiscellaneousWbDealU/S 173 ofthelVlotorVehicleAct. 1988 Present: ShrilVlanish Upadhyay, counselfortheappellant. ORDER »th <9tnNovember,2010) The foliowihg order .of Ra|eevGupta,C.J. % Appellant — Bharat is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ^birdham (Kawardha) (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 09.08.2010, passedinCiaimCaseNo.86/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.51,90,000/- claimed by the appellant/clajmant bYfiling aclaim petitionjunderSection 166 oftheiVlotoFVehjclesACtfortheinjuriessustainedbyhiminthe motoraccident on 20.08.2007, theTribunal awardedatotaj sum of Rs.21,000/- as compensation to the claimant aiong with interest @ 8% per annum from the date ofjfiling^^^^^^^^ petition till the date ofactual payment. | 3) ,Shri Manjsh ypadhyay, learned coun^ vehemently argued that the Tribunat has erred in awardin^ low compensation of Rs.21,000/- onlythough the appellant/clajmant sustained mujtiple serioys injurres in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 40%. 4) From para 8 of the award, we gather that the claimant, for the reasons best known to him, did not examine any doctor before the Tribunaf to establish the nature ofthe jnjuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor accident and the fact thatthoseinjuriesresultedinanypermanentdisability. 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant befbre the Tribunal without examining the who issued the certifjcate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the cbmpensation came up for 0 consideratjonbefQretheApexCourtinthecaseofA.P.SRTCv. P. Thirupal Reddy, rep()rted in (2005) 12 SC waspbservedinparaSasunder: "6,i A clatmantwhomadeanattemptlpsupporttheorderb HigfrCourt,wefinclthattherewasnojys^ High Gourt to rely on^t Dr. Sydhakar Reddy and enhance the (^mpensation by treating the injury as permanent disabilit^ to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed^gross ^errQF In overtookinc! the faet ttiat Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the TFibunaJ for rion- examihation bfthatdoctoF. 'TheT'ribunaI ttasdetermined the bhvsica! disabiljtv at 15 D^^^^ deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded iaiystand fair comDensation. The Hiah Ccujrt erred In^djsturbin^ same and enhancind fhe cbmpensation. jConsequently, we allov^Wis appeal,set asjdethe impugned order and restore the award of fhe Claims Tribunal. The respondent-ciaimantisallowedtawithdrawjtheamountof compensatibn 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 observationsihpara11^^^^^^^^^^^^ "11. The cerfificate in questjon in this case was obtained after two years. It j&not knowri a&to whether the Civil Surgeon ofthe hospital treated^ ^ On what basis, syQh a certifieate was issued two'years after the accident took piace Js not known. The author of 4 L-., the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of fhe certificate examined himself; it was not admissible in evidentie. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Cbmpensatk>n|Actor otlierwise isnotknoyvn. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such^a certificate. It even doesnot appearthatthe contentiohs raised before us had either' been raised before the Tribunal or the High Courf. The^^^ also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials broughton record by the parties.l In absence of any contention having been raised in jregard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensa1|ion Act which, in our opinioh, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first :time." ,:,..:• ,::: - ^..., \ ;.-;:ll:i, 7) In view oftheaboveqyoteddfeteQftheApex Court in the cases ofA.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate and the disability eertificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors who had issued the said certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 8) We, therefore, do not findany scope for enhancement of the eompensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) Theappealfiled bythe appellant/claimant forenharscement of the compensation, therefore, js liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissedsummarily. Sd/- Chief Justice .^^ Sd/- p^^[. Chandrakar Judge