:r; •^ iir;.£. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B5LASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: ApDeiSant Ciaimant HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. M.AfONo. 929 of 2009 Kameshwar Puri Goswami, Son of Thanwar Puri Goswami, about 40 years, R/o, Village Pathrra; P.s. & Tahsil Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Chharka Ram Sahu, Son of Kartik Ram Sahu, aged about 59 years, R/o Village Sichai Karyaiaya Gariyaband, P.S. & Tahsii Gariyaband, District - Raipur, 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department, Through : Area Store, Water Resources Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ADpea! under Sectlon 173 ofthe Motor Vehlcles Acf. 1988 Rresent: Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appeliant. Respondents Driver Owner ORDER fih (27tnAugust,2009) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri D.N. Prajapti, learned counsel for theappellant is heard on admission. 2) Appeflant Kameshwar Puri Goswami is seeking enhancement of the compensatibn awarded by the Addifional Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Gariyaband, District Raipur f\' (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 05.05.2009, passed in Ciaim CaseNo.93/2008. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.6,24,000/- ciaimed by the appellant/ ciaimant by filing a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.06.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.84,100/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actua! payment. 4) Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.84,100/- only, though the appeilanVclaimant sustained multipieserious injuries including fractures in the motor accident, resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 40%. 5) Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant examined himseif as AW-1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ ciaimant, 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 resutted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal withbut 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. ThirupaE 3 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 findthat there was no justification for the High Court^o rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injuryas permanent disabiiityto be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribuna! for non-examination of that doctor. The TribunaS has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deDosition 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 order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensatiori 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 a!ias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 30S, reiterated the same view w/ith 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 Civi! Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate 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 disabiiity at 60% was calculated on the basis ofthe provisions of theWorkmen'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 TribunaJ 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 appljcabiilty of the Workmen's Compensation Actwhich, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupa! Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medicai certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellanVclaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in fhe case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appea! fiied by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is Jiabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu