HKSH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DMSSONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV OUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRJ SUNSL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appeilant Ciaimant pn® Resoondents Non-appeiiants Misc Appeai No.104/2006 Roshan Kumar Puri GoswamS, S/o Shri Sukhdev Puri Goswami, Aged about 29 yers, R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Changorabhata, Ralpur (CG) VERSUS 1 Rupendra Nihal, S/o Karnakar Nihal, aged about 24 years, R/o New Penslon Bada, Arvind Nagar, Raipur (CG) (Driver of the Maruti Car Bearing Regd No.CG 04/ZD 8904) 2 SK Shenda, S/o Dhrama Shenda Aged about 68 years, R/o B - 24 Gayatri Nagar,Thana Civil Line Ralpur CG 3 • The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through its D'ivisional manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited, Near Kutohery Chowk, District RAipur (CG) (Insurerof the Maruti Car Bearing Regd No.CG 04/ZD 8904) Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vetiicles Act. 1988 Present : Shri Satyendra Sahu, counsei for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 & 2 though served. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Manoj Mishra, counsei for respondents No.4 & 5. ORDER (10m Juiy, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. ^^:^^^ ^<^ ^ w 's;;^s®^ Appellant Roshan Kumar .Puri Goswami is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 12' AdditJonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 17.08.2005 passed in Claim CaseNo.32/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,10.000/-, ciaimed by the appellant / ciaimant by filing a claim petltion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 22.02.2004, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.4,000/-/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Satyendra Sahu, learned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,000/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the accident with corresponding fractures. 4) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The United India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and submitted that as the appellant could not establish that the injuries sustained by him in the motor acddent resulted in any permanent disability, the compensation of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5) Shri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5 aiso supported the award. ^ '^ ^:- ' ^.^^^^^ '-^5^^ ^ 6) 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 sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 7) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunai 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 Vs 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 - daimant 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 percent. The Hiah Court committed gross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal fornon-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we ailow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. l^ »»-» The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs 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 this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certiricate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Untess the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the djsability 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 High Court. 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 facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." ^ ^^ 9) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P.Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh (supra), the certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors, who had issued those certificates cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal filed by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. padAa Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge